Woodhouse v Thalis (No. 2) - [2018] NSWSC 110

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Woodhouse v Thalis (No. 2) [2018] NSWSC 110
Hearing dates: Written submissions
Date of orders: 19 February 2018
Decision date: 19 February 2018
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Bellew J
Decision:
(1) The plaintiff is to pay the defendant’s costs as agreed or assessed.

Catchwords: COSTS – Whether costs should follow the event – No point of principle
Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW)
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Windsurfing International Inc v Petit (1987) AIPC-90-441
Woodhouse v Thalis [2017] NSWSC 1725
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Andrew Lance Woodhouse (Plaintiff)
Philip Thalis (Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
In person (Plaintiff)
S Blanks (solicitor) (Defendant)
Solicitors:
In person (Plaintiff)
SBA Lawyers (Defendant)

File Number(s): 2017/213057
Publication restriction: Nil
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal

Citation:

[2017] NSWCATAD 260

Date of Decision:

17 May 2017

Before:

M Craig QC; R Titterton; B Thomson

File Number(s):

2016/00378839, 2016/001620279

Judgment

In these proceedings I delivered judgment on 15 December 2017 refusing an application brought by the plaintiff to extend the time in which to appeal against a decision of the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal: Woodhouse v Thalis [2017] NSWSC 1725. On that occasion I gave the parties the opportunity to provide written submissions as to costs in the event that no agreement could be reached.
This judgment deals with that issue.

Submissions of the plaintiff

The plaintiff submitted that in all of the circumstances, any claim made by the defendant for costs should be particularised so as to enable him to make some assessment as to whether or not those costs were reasonable. The plaintiff further submitted that the proceedings were brought in the public interest and involved a challenge to the election of a public official and that such cases should, as a matter of public policy, be permitted to be brought without the threat of an adverse costs order.
The plaintiff further submitted that although the general rule is that costs follow the event, there remained a discretion in the Court to make an alternative order. He submitted that because a summons seeking leave to appeal had been lodged, the “event” was “not finalised”, and that a costs order was therefore not appropriate.
It was submitted that in all of these circumstances, the issue of costs was “now subject to appeal”; that “it should not be decided prematurely” and that “costs should follow the final event”.

Submissions of the defendant

It was submitted on behalf of the defendant that the plaintiff should pay his costs of the proceedings on an indemnity basis that the proceedings brought by the plaintiff amounted to “no more than a vexatious and, at times, scandalous re-agitation of issues disposed of by the Tribunal”. It was further submitted that the evidence relied upon by the plaintiff was misconceived and of no assistance to the Court, and that the plaintiff’s conduct of the proceedings gave rise to an inference that he did not…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Woodhouse v Thalis (No. 2) and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2018] NSWSC 110
Decision Date: 19 February 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Woodhouse v Thalis (No. 2), the parties involved were Woodhouse and Thalis, who were in dispute over matters relating to costs in the context of legal proceedings. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The dispute centred around the issue of whether costs should follow the event, a principle that generally dictates that the losing party in legal proceedings bears the costs of the winning party. The court was tasked with determining whether there were any exceptional circumstances that would warrant deviating from this principle.

The central legal issue before the court was whether there were grounds to depart from the principle that costs should follow the event. The court needed to consider whether the circumstances of the case warranted a deviation from this principle, and if so, what those circumstances were. The court examined the conduct of both parties, the nature of the dispute, and the outcomes of previous proceedings between the same parties to assess whether a point of principle or exceptional circumstances existed that would justify such a departure.

The court concluded that there was no point of principle that would warrant a departure from the general rule that costs should follow the event. The reasoning was grounded in the established legal precedent that such deviations are only justified in exceptional cases. The court found that the conduct of both parties did not rise to the level of exceptional circumstances that would warrant a departure from the principle. The court also took into account the outcomes of previous proceedings between the same parties, which did not provide a basis for a different outcome in this instance. The final determination was that costs should follow the event, and there were no exceptional circumstances that would allow for a different outcome.

The final orders of the court were that the costs of the proceeding were to be borne by the losing party, consistent with the principle that costs should follow the event. The court did not find any exceptional circumstances that would justify a deviation from this principle. This decision reinforces the importance of adhering to established legal principles unless there are clear and exceptional circumstances to warrant a departure.

Orders