Trevor-Jones v Harness Racing New South Wales (No 2)

[2024] NSWSC 1017

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: V Heath (First, Second and Third Plaintiffs) T Wong SC with J Elks (First Defendant) Solicitors: GJ Harris & Co (First, Second and Third Plaintiffs) Cadre Moss (First Defendant)
File Number(s):	2023/00179706

Judgment

1. 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.”

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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”.

5. 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.

6. In all the circumstances, it appears to me that costs should follow the event.

7. For these reasons, the order of the Court is:

1. The plaintiffs are to pay the first defendant’s costs of and incidental to the proceedings.

**********

Decision last updated: 15 August 2024