Tanilba Beach Pty Limited v Jr and JB Pty Limited
Case
•
[2018] NSWSC 288
•09 March 2018
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Tanilba Beach Pty Limited v Jr and JB Pty Limited [2018] NSWSC 288
[2018] NSWSC 288
09 March 2018
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Tanilba Beach Pty Limited, the plaintiff, initiated proceedings against Jr and JB Pty Limited, the defendants, in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The plaintiff sought a writ of execution against the defendants' property to enforce a judgment debt. The defendants applied for leave to have the costs of the plaintiff's proceeding assessed and for an order setting off the costs against the judgment debt. The court was required to determine whether leave should be granted under Uniform Civil Procedure Rules rule 39.1, whether the defendants should be given an opportunity to have their costs assessed, and whether there were circumstances justifying setting off the costs against the judgment debt.
The court considered whether there were any grounds to grant leave under rule 39.1, which permits the court to order a party to pay costs on an indemnity basis. The court found that the defendants had not provided any evidence to support the claim that they were unable to pay the judgment debt, and that the application for leave was an attempt to delay enforcement of the judgment. The court also considered whether the defendants should be given an opportunity to have their costs assessed, and found that there were no circumstances justifying such an order. The court held that the defendants had not demonstrated any injustice or grave circumstances that would warrant setting off the costs against the judgment debt.
The court dismissed the defendants' application and ordered that the writ of execution should issue. The court held that the defendants had not demonstrated any circumstances that would justify granting leave under rule 39.1, and that there were no grounds for setting off the costs against the judgment debt. The court found that the defendants' application was an attempt to delay enforcement of the judgment, and that the plaintiff was entitled to have the writ of execution issued to enforce the judgment debt. The court ordered that the writ of execution should issue forthwith, and that the defendants pay the plaintiff's costs of the proceeding on an indemnity basis.
The court considered whether there were any grounds to grant leave under rule 39.1, which permits the court to order a party to pay costs on an indemnity basis. The court found that the defendants had not provided any evidence to support the claim that they were unable to pay the judgment debt, and that the application for leave was an attempt to delay enforcement of the judgment. The court also considered whether the defendants should be given an opportunity to have their costs assessed, and found that there were no circumstances justifying such an order. The court held that the defendants had not demonstrated any injustice or grave circumstances that would warrant setting off the costs against the judgment debt.
The court dismissed the defendants' application and ordered that the writ of execution should issue. The court held that the defendants had not demonstrated any circumstances that would justify granting leave under rule 39.1, and that there were no grounds for setting off the costs against the judgment debt. The court found that the defendants' application was an attempt to delay enforcement of the judgment, and that the plaintiff was entitled to have the writ of execution issued to enforce the judgment debt. The court ordered that the writ of execution should issue forthwith, and that the defendants pay the plaintiff's costs of the proceeding on an indemnity basis.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Civil Litigation & Procedure
Legal Concepts
-
Jurisdiction
-
Costs
-
Summary Judgment
-
Set Off
-
Civil Penalty
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
DSHE Holdings (Receivers & Managers Appointed)(In Liquidation) v Nicholas Abboud (No 4); National Australia Bank Limited v Nicholas Abboud (No 5) [2022] NSWSC 91
Cases Citing This Decision
6
Cutting Edge Services Pty Ltd v Raymond and Therese Penfold; Raymond and Therese Penfold v The Hollard Insurance Company Pty Ltd (No 2)
[2022] NSWSC 516
Tanilba Beach Pty Limited v Jr and JB Pty Limited (No 2)
[2018] NSWSC 1250
Cases Cited
8
Statutory Material Cited
2
Burrell Solicitors Pty Ltd & Anor v Reavill Farm Pty Ltd & Ors
[2016] NSWSC 303
Reavill Farm Pty Ltd v Burrell Solicitors Pty Ltd
[2017] NSWCA 156
Coshott v Barry & Board
[2017] NSWSC 1435