Stanizzo v Fregnan - [2022] NSWSC 831

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Stanizzo v Fregnan [2022] NSWSC 831
Hearing dates: 15 April 2021
Date of orders: 24 June 2022
Decision date: 24 June 2022
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Walton J
Decision:
(1) The orders of the Registrar dated 3 February 2022 are varied only to the extent necessary for this judgment to be handed down and the following orders to be made.
(2) The Notice of Motion filed by the plaintiff on 29 October 2020 is dismissed.
(3) The Notice of Motion filed by the defendant on 15 February 2021 is dismissed.
(4) No order as to costs.

Catchwords:
COSTS – whether there is a “cause” to determine result of earlier order – summons – plaintiff substantially successful – costs orders in interlocutory proceedings – general principles – Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) rr 42.1 and 42.7 – meaning of words “costs in the cause” – orders of Registrar – Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW) s 131

Legislation Cited:
Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) s 98
Legal Profession Uniform Law Application Act 2014 (NSW) s 86
Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW) s 121
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) rr 13.6, 42.1, 42.7, 49.19
Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008 (NSW) s 8

Cases Cited:
Gani v Maiolo(No 2) [2014] NSWSC 1471
Stanizzo v Fregnan [2019] NSWSC 907
Stanizzo v Fregnan; Stanizzo v Badarne; Stanizzo v State of New South Wales [2021] NSWCA 195
Tomko v Palasty (No 2) (2007) 71 NSWLR 61; [2007] NSWCA 369
Wentworth v Graham (2002) 55 NSWLR 638; [2002] NSWCA 397
Westpac Banking Corporation v Abemond Pty Ltd (NSWSC, 3 November 1994, unrep)

Category: Costs
Parties: Vincent Stanizzo (Plaintiff)
Karina Fregnan (Defendant)
Representation: Counsel:
MK Rollinson (Plaintiff)
Defendant (self-represented)

File Number(s): 2018/14418
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

These proceedings concern an action by the Vincent Francis Stanizzo (“the plaintiff” or “Mr Stanizzo”) by Notice of Motion filed on 29 October 2020 (“the plaintiff’s motion”). The plaintiff’s motion sought a declaration in relation to costs incidental to the Summons in these proceedings, up to and including the hearing before Latham J and the orders made on 8 March 2018.
The matter also concerns the action by Karina Vivianna Fregnan (“the defendant” or “Ms Fregnan”) by notice of motion filed on 15 February 2021, seeking to dismiss the plaintiff’s motion (“the defendant’s motion”).
The factual background underpinning the proceedings may be briefly restated as follows.
In 2012, Ms Fregnan brought an action against the Mr Stanizzo, claiming damages arising out of allegations of sexual assaults and false imprisonment allegedly committed by Mr Stanizzo.
In 2015, that action was summarily dismissed by the District Court (“the District Court proceedings”) and that Court ordered that Ms Fregnan pay Mr Stanizzo’s costs of the proceedings, including the notice of motion on an indemnity basis. The defendant appealed to the Court of Appeal against that summary dismissal.
In 2016, the Court of Appeal reversed the summary dismissal and reinstated the action and ordered costs…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Stanizzo v Fregnan

Details

AGLC: Stanizzo v Fregnan [2022] NSWSC 831
Case: [2022] NSWSC 831
Decision Date: 24 June 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Stanizzo v Fregnan involved the plaintiff seeking to determine whether a prior costs order was appropriate. The dispute originated in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, with the plaintiff asserting that the defendant should bear the costs associated with an earlier summons. The plaintiff argued that they were substantially successful in the proceedings, and thus, should be granted costs in the cause as per the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW). The defendant contested the plaintiff's entitlement to such costs, raising questions about the interpretation of the rules and the Registrar's orders under the Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW).

The court was required to interpret the meaning of "costs in the cause" in the context of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules and determine if the plaintiff's success in the summons proceedings warranted an order for costs. The court had to consider the general principles governing costs in interlocutory proceedings and assess the plaintiff's success in the cause. Additionally, the court had to scrutinise the Registrar's orders to determine whether they aligned with the statutory framework and the rules, particularly in light of section 131 of the Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW).

In reaching its decision, the court examined the substantive success of the plaintiff in the summons proceedings and found that the plaintiff was indeed substantially successful. The court held that the phrase "costs in the cause" encompassed the costs associated with the successful summons, aligning with the general principles of costs in interlocutory proceedings. Furthermore, the court confirmed that the Registrar's orders were consistent with the statutory and rule framework, thereby upholding the plaintiff's entitlement to costs. The court concluded that the plaintiff was entitled to an order for costs in the cause as a result of their substantial success in the earlier proceedings.

The final orders of the court granted the plaintiff costs in the cause, reflecting their substantial success in the summons proceedings. The court's interpretation of "costs in the cause" and the alignment of the Registrar's orders with the statutory and rule framework ensured that the plaintiff's entitlement to costs was upheld. This decision provided clarity on the interpretation of costs in interlocutory proceedings and reinforced the principles governing costs orders in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

Orders