Vero Insurance Ltd v Kassem
Case
•
[2010] NSWSC 1481
•17 December 2010
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Vero Insurance Ltd v Kassem [2010] NSWSC 1481
[2010] NSWSC 1481
17 December 2010
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Vero Insurance Ltd brought a claim against Kassem, as well as two other defendants, for damages for breach of insurance contract. The insurance company sought indemnity for losses suffered by a client as a result of Kassem's alleged fraudulent activities. The first and second defendants were the administrators of the client company. The case proceeded to trial, with the first defendants serving affidavits but not seeking to be heard at the trial, leaving the defence in the hands of the second defendant. The insurance company was unsuccessful in its claim. Vero Insurance Ltd then sought to have the first defendants, as well as the second defendant, pay its costs of the action.
The central legal issue was whether the first defendants, who served affidavits but did not seek to be heard at the trial, should be liable for costs, and if so, whether any such costs should exclude the costs of the affidavits that were not read. The insurance company argued that, since the first defendants served affidavits, they should be liable for costs. It further argued that, since the affidavits were not read, their costs should be excluded. The first defendants argued that they should not be liable for costs because they did not seek to be heard at the trial.
The court held that the first defendants were liable for costs of the action, as they had served affidavits and participated in the litigation process. However, the court also held that the costs of the affidavits that were not read should be excluded from any costs order, as they did not contribute to the outcome of the case. The court found that the second defendant, who was the only party to seek to be heard at the trial, was liable for the costs of the insurance company. The first defendants were liable for the costs of the second defendant.
In light of the above, the court ordered that the first defendants pay the costs of the second defendant, but not the costs of the affidavits that were not read. The court further ordered that the second defendant pay the costs of the insurance company.
The central legal issue was whether the first defendants, who served affidavits but did not seek to be heard at the trial, should be liable for costs, and if so, whether any such costs should exclude the costs of the affidavits that were not read. The insurance company argued that, since the first defendants served affidavits, they should be liable for costs. It further argued that, since the affidavits were not read, their costs should be excluded. The first defendants argued that they should not be liable for costs because they did not seek to be heard at the trial.
The court held that the first defendants were liable for costs of the action, as they had served affidavits and participated in the litigation process. However, the court also held that the costs of the affidavits that were not read should be excluded from any costs order, as they did not contribute to the outcome of the case. The court found that the second defendant, who was the only party to seek to be heard at the trial, was liable for the costs of the insurance company. The first defendants were liable for the costs of the second defendant.
In light of the above, the court ordered that the first defendants pay the costs of the second defendant, but not the costs of the affidavits that were not read. The court further ordered that the second defendant pay the costs of the insurance company.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Civil Litigation & Procedure
Legal Concepts
-
Costs
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
Guo v Song [2018] NSWSC 12
Cases Cited
3
Statutory Material Cited
1
Vero Insurance Ltd v Kassem
[2010] NSWSC 838
Vero Insurance Ltd v Kassem
[2010] NSWSC 838
Kirwan v Cresvale Far East Ltd (in liq)
[2002] NSWCA 395