Woolf v Brandt (No 2)

[2023] NSWCA 309

Court of Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

Woolf v Brandt (No 2) [2023] NSWCA 309

Hearing dates:

On the papers

Date of orders:

15 December 2023

Decision date:

15 December 2023

Before:

Kirk JA; Adamson JA

Decision:

The costs of the respondent are assessed, pursuant to s 98(4)(c) of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), in the gross sum of $11,500.00 (which amount includes the costs of applying for this gross sum costs order)

Catchwords:

COSTS — Costs assessment — Whether gross sum costs order should be made — Whether costs should be awarded on an indemnity basis

Legislation Cited:

Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), s 98(4)

Cases Cited:

Gabrielle v Abood (No 4) [2023] NSWCA 100

Grace v Thomas Street Café Pty Ltd (No 2) [2008] NSWCA 72

Regency Media Pty Ltd v AAV Australia Pty Ltd [2009] NSWCA 368

Category:

Costs

Parties:

Richard Woolf (Applicant)
Nicholas Brandt (Respondent)

Representation:

Counsel:
Self-represented (Applicant)
T Smartt (Respondent)

Solicitors:
Not applicable (Applicant)
Youth Law Australia (Respondent)

File Number(s):

2023/214839

 Decision under appeal 

Court or tribunal:

District Court

Jurisdiction:

Civil

Citation:

Woolf v Brandt (No 2) [2023] NSWDC 184

Date of Decision:

7 June 2023

Before:

Gibson DCJ

File Number(s):

2022/135926

JUDGMENT

1. THE COURT: In this proceeding the Court dismissed an application for leave to appeal from a decision of the District Court summarily dismissing the applicant’s claim as an abuse of process: Woolf v Brandt [2023] NSWCA 290.

2. The Court indicated at the conclusion of the hearing of the leave application that the application was dismissed with costs. The respondent then indicated that he wished to apply for his costs to be fixed in a gross sum pursuant to s 98(4) of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW). The Court made timetabling orders which required that the respondent file his submissions and evidence by 4 December 2023, that the applicant file and serve any submissions and evidence in response by 12 December 2023, with the respondent having leave to reply by 14 December 2023. The Court indicated that the application would be determined on the papers.

3. The respondent duly filed brief submissions on 4 December 2023. As regards evidence, he relied upon copies of an invoice to the respondent from each of his solicitor and barrister relating to costs of the proceedings in this Court, along with two open letters offering to settle the proceedings in the Court below.

4. The applicant has not filed any submissions or evidence in response to the respondent’s application. An email was sent to him by the associate of the presiding judge on the morning of 13 December 2023, asking him to confirm that he do not intend to file such materials and, if he did, to provide that material by no later than 1pm on that day. No response was received.

5. Three issues are raised by the respondent’s application:

1. Should costs be awarded on an indemnity basis?

2. Should the Court undertake a gross sum assessment?

3. If so, what amount…