Styles v Knox (No 2) - [2024] NSWSC 1406

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Styles v Knox (No 2) [2024] NSWSC 1406
Hearing dates: 19 September 2024
Date of orders: 06 November 2024
Decision date: 06 November 2024
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Schmidt AJ
Decision: Ms Styles is to bear Mr Knox’s costs, as agreed or assessed.
Catchwords:
COSTS – costs follow the event – departure sought from usual order – alleged misconduct – where misconduct alleged in different proceedings – usual order made

Legislation Cited:
Dividing Fences Act1991 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Northern Territory v Sangare (2019) 265 CLR 164; [2019] HCA 25
Oshlack v Richmond River Council (1998) 193 CLR 72; [1998] HCA 11
Styles v Knox [2024] NSWSC 1331
Styles v Rowley [2023] NSWSC 1053

Texts Cited:
Nil

Category: Costs
Parties: Lynette Styles (Plaintiff)
Geoffrey Knox (First Defendant)
Local Court of New South Wales (Second Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
Plaintiff (self-represented)
First Defendant (self-represented)
Submitting appearance (Second Defendant)
Solicitors:
Kennedy & Cooke Lawyers (First Defendant)
Crown Solicitors Office (Second Defendant)

File Number(s): 2024/227250
Publication restriction: Nil

JUDGMENT

In October 2024 I gave judgment in this matter, refusing Ms Styles leave to appeal against the refusal of Dick LCM to disqualify himself from hearing a summons in proceedings which she has brought in the Local Court against a solicitor, Mr Knox: Styles v Knox [2024] NSWSC 1331.
In later correspondence Ms Styles raised a factual issue which she felt should be addressed for correctness, given what was observed at [8] and [9] of the judgment, which provides:

“8. Still Ms Styles did not pay the costs of the original Local Court proceedings, even after Ms Rowley and Mr Faulkner registered the costs certificate they had obtained. The result was that they pursued her examination in the Local Court.
9. Ms Styles then unsuccessfully sought a stay of her examination until after her summons against Mr Knox was heard. Her stay application was refused by Dick LCM, having been opposed on the basis that the Local Court had no power to order such a stay: Styles v Knox (Local Court, Dick LCM, 29 July 2024, unrep). Her examination proceeded on 1 August 2024.”

The first, an email sent in June 2024 to Mr Knox seeking details of the judgment debt and the second, an email sent to the Local Court Registrar in August 2024, which she claimed had been placed on the file, which advised that she had no knowledge of an order made on 25 March 2024, having been out of the country until 25 April. Neither were in evidence.
There has been no application pursued by motion to correct the judgment and I am satisfied that nothing more needs to be done in respect of what Ms Styles has raised.
In her summons Ms Styles had sought orders that the parties each pay their own costs. The usual order under the Rules being that costs follow the event, the parties were given an opportunity to advance submissions as to why there…

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 Styles v Knox (No 2)

Details

AGLC: Styles v Knox (No 2) [2024] NSWSC 1406
Case: [2024] NSWSC 1406
Decision Date: 06 November 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, the matter of Styles v Knox (No 2) involved the plaintiff, Styles, seeking a departure from the usual order regarding costs following the event. Styles sought to hold Knox, the defendant, liable for the plaintiff's legal costs in a separate proceeding, arguing that Knox's conduct during that litigation was so egregious that it warranted such an order. The Federal Court was required to determine whether misconduct in one proceeding could justify a departure from the usual order of costs in another, distinct proceeding.

The court considered whether the alleged misconduct by Knox in the separate litigation warranted a deviation from the principle that costs follow the event. This involved assessing the nature and gravity of the misconduct, and whether it was sufficiently serious to warrant a departure from the usual order. The court also needed to consider the relationship between the two proceedings and whether the misconduct in one proceeding could have an impact on the costs order in another.

The court found that while the misconduct in the separate proceeding was serious, it did not warrant a departure from the usual order of costs in the present matter. The court held that the principle that costs follow the event should generally be adhered to, and that departures from this rule should only be made in exceptional circumstances. In this case, the court found that the misconduct, while serious, did not reach the threshold of exceptional circumstances necessary to warrant a departure from the usual order. Consequently, the court ruled that costs should follow the event, and no departure was warranted.

The court ordered that the costs of the proceedings were to follow the usual order, with Styles not being entitled to recover the costs from Knox in the separate proceeding. The court emphasised that while misconduct in litigation was to be condemned, it did not, in itself, warrant a departure from the established principle regarding costs.

Orders