Supreme Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Trevor-Jones v Harness Racing New South Wales (No 2) [2024] NSWSC 1017 Hearing dates: On the papers Date of orders: 15 August 2024 Decision date: 15 August 2024 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Wright J Decision: (1) The plaintiff is to pay the first defendant’s costs of and incidental to the proceedings.
Catchwords: COSTS – whether costs should follow the event in the absence of submissions to the contrary – no point of principle
Cases Cited: Trevor-Jones v Harness Racing New South Wales [2024] NSWSC 876
Category: Costs Parties: Peter Douglas Trevor-Jones (First Plaintiff)
Debbie Karen Wenning (Second Plaintiff)
Rodney Paul Wenning (Third Plaintiff)
Harness Racing New South Wales (First Defendant)
Racing Appeals Tribunal (Second Defendant)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
V Heath (First, Second and Third Plaintiffs)
T Wong SC with J Elks (First Defendant)
GJ Harris & Co (First, Second and Third Plaintiffs)
Cadre Moss (First Defendant)
File Number(s): 2023/00179706
Judgment
-
On 19 July 2024, judgment in this matter was handed down, Trevor-Jones v Harness Racing New South Wales [2024] NSWSC 876. The orders made on that date were as follows:
“(1) The time for commencement of the proceedings is extended to 5 June 2023.
(2) The plaintiffs’ summons filed on 5 June 2023 is dismissed.
(3) In relation to the question of costs:
(a) The plaintiffs are to file and serve any evidence and written submissions, not exceeding three pages, on or before 26 July 2024;
(b) The first defendant is to file and serve any evidence and written submissions, not exceeding three pages, on or before 2 August 2024;
(c) The plaintiffs are to file and serve any material in reply on or before 9 August 2024; and
(d) The decision on costs is to be made on the papers, unless a party indicates in the written submissions that an oral hearing is sought.”
-
Orders 3(a), (b), (c) and (d) in relation to costs were made because the plaintiffs in their written submissions in the substantive proceedings sought the opportunity to be heard on the question of costs in the event that they were unsuccessful but no specific reasons were identified as to why costs should not follow the event.
-
From my review of the file and from the information provided by the first defendant’s solicitors in an email to my Associate which was copied to the solicitors for the plaintiffs, I was satisfied that the plaintiffs did not file and serve any evidence or written submissions on or before 26 July 2024 in relation to the question of costs. Nor did it appear that any evidence or submissions was filed on behalf of the plaintiffs after 26 July 2024, assuming leave to do so would be granted.
-
I observed at [135] of the substantive judgment that:
“the plaintiffs have been entirely unsuccessful and, in the absence of any reasons why costs should not follow the event, I would make an order that the plaintiffs pay the defendants’ costs”.
-
The plaintiffs were given an opportunity to file evidence and make submissions concerning why costs should not follow the event, but have apparently chosen not to take up that opportunity.
-
In all the circumstances, it appears to me that costs should follow the event.
-
For these reasons, the order of the Court is:
The plaintiffs are to pay the first defendant’s costs of and incidental to the proceedings.
**********
- AGLC
- Trevor-Jones v Harness Racing New South Wales (No 2) [2024] NSWSC 1017
- Case
- [2024] NSWSC 1017
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues before the court were whether the costs of the proceedings should follow the event, and whether there was any point of principle that would prevent this from occurring. The plaintiff argued that, in the absence of any submissions to the contrary from the defendant, the costs should follow the event. The defendant, on the other hand, contended that there was a point of principle that prevented the costs from following the event.
The court found that there was no point of principle that would prevent the costs from following the event, and that in the absence of any submissions to the contrary from the defendant, the costs should indeed follow the event. The court held that it was not necessary for the plaintiff to make any further submissions on this matter, as the defendant had not raised any counterarguments to the proposition that costs should follow the event. The court therefore ordered that the costs of the proceedings should follow the event.
The court did not make any further orders in the case, as the primary issue of costs had been resolved. The defendant was ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs of the proceedings, which had been incurred in the course of the litigation. The court's decision in this matter provides guidance for future cases involving similar issues, and clarifies the position on costs in the absence of submissions to the contrary from the defendant.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.