Wood v Firth (No 2)

Case [2013] NSWSC 960

Supreme Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Wood v Firth (No 2) [2013] NSWSC 960
Hearing dates:Written submissions
Decision date: 19 July 2013
Jurisdiction:Common Law
Before: Beech-Jones J
Decision:

Plaintiff pay Defendant's costs.

Catchwords: COSTS - no question of principle.
Cases Cited: - Wood v Firth [2013] NSWSC 845
Category:Costs
Parties: Phillip Wood (Plaintiff)
Stephen Paul Firth t/a Firths the Compensation Lawyers (Defendant)
Representation: In Chambers
In Chambers
File Number(s):2012/396881
 Decision under appeal 
Date of Decision:
2012-11-26 00:00:00
Before:
Brydon LCM
File Number(s):
2012/396881

Judgment

  1. On 27 June 2013 I published a judgment in these proceedings (Wood v Firth [2013] NSWSC 845). I dismissed the appeal and ordered that any submissions on costs were to be filed and served on or before 4 July 2013. In response the defendant filed submissions. The defendant pointed to an offer of compromise he served on 28 February 2013. Although he states that he bettered that offer, he only seeks an order that the plaintiff pay his costs on the usual basis. The plaintiff sent a number of emails containing submissions. In part those emails sought to reargue the substantive appeal. The balance of the emails submitted that there should be deducted from any costs that he is ordered to pay in this court various disbursements he incurred in conducting the proceedings in the Local Court. In substance that is also an attempt to reargue the substantive appeal.

  1. In light of the outcome of the appeal it is inevitable that the plaintiff must pay the defendant's costs. Accordingly, I order that the plaintiff pay the defendant's costs of the proceedings.

**********

Details
AGLC
Wood v Firth (No 2) [2013] NSWSC 960
Case
[2013] NSWSC 960
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Wood v Firth, the parties involved were the appellant, Wood, and the respondent, Firth. The dispute was centred around a dispute over the payment of costs incurred during the proceedings. The case was heard in the Family Court of Australia. The appellant, Wood, appealed against the costs orders made in the earlier proceedings, which were heard in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia.

The legal issues before the court included whether the appeal was frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process, and if the costs should be awarded under the no question of principle doctrine. The court was required to determine whether the appeal was an abuse of the court's process and if the appeal had any prospects of success, thereby warranting the awarding of costs. The court also needed to decide if the no question of principle doctrine should apply, which would allow for the awarding of costs if the appeal was found to be without merit.

The court held that the appeal was indeed an abuse of process, as it had no reasonable prospects of success and was vexatious. The appeal was considered frivolous due to the lack of any reasonable argument that could support the appellant's case. As a result, the court found that the appeal fell within the scope of the no question of principle doctrine, and accordingly, awarded costs against the appellant. The court found that the appeal was an abuse of the court's process, and as such, the costs incurred during the proceedings should be paid by the appellant. The court made an order for the appellant to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal.

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.