YZ v Amazon (No 6) - [2015] NSWSC 1951

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: YZ v Amazon (No 6) [2015] NSWSC 1951
Hearing dates: 11 December 2015
Date of orders: 11 December 2015
Decision date: 11 December 2015
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: McCallum J
Decision:
In respect of the matters determined in YZ v Amazon (No 3), plaintiff to pay three-quarters of the costs of the first, third, fourth and sixth defendants. In respect of the argument determined in YZ v Amazon (No 4), plaintiff to pay the first, third, fourth and sixth defendants’ costs.

Catchwords: COSTS – ordinary rule that costs follow the event – where issues determined involved a measure of complexity – where plaintiff unrepresented – where plaintiff propounded multiple pleadings in respect of which the defendants incurred costs
Cases Cited: YZ v Amazon (No 3) [2015] NSWSC 1130
YZ v Amazon (No 4) [2015] NSWSC 1346
Category: Costs
Parties: YZ (Plaintiff)
Amazon (1st defendant)
Smashwords Inc (2nd defendant)
OP (3rd defendant)
QRS (4th defendant)
WX (6th defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
Plaintiff appeared in person
S Chrysanthou (first defendant)
No appearance for the second defendant
R Potter (third, fourth and sixth defendants)
Solicitors:
Plaintiff self-represented
HWL Ebsworth Lawyers (first defendant)
Dwyer Bruce Legal (third, fourth and sixth defendants)

File Number(s): 2013/178073
Publication restriction: Note: Some of the parties in these proceedings are the subject of pseudonym orders.

Judgment – ex tempore

HER HONOUR: These proceedings are before the Court today for the second listing. Happily, the parties have agreed as to the orders to be made in accordance with practice note SC CL 4 and those orders have been made.
There is also before the Court a reserved question as to the costs of the argument determined in two earlier judgments in the proceedings, being YZ v Amazon (No 3) [2015] NSWSC 1130 and YZ v Amazon (No 4) [2015] NSWSC 1346.
The first, third, fourth and sixth defendants seek their costs of the arguments determined in those judgments. In YZ v Amazon (No 3), I gave rulings as to the plaintiff's imputations. The complexity of the issues determined is recorded in the judgment. Subject to one qualification to which I will come, the defendants plainly enjoyed a measure of success in that judgment and it would, in my view, be within the Court's discretion to apply the ordinary rule that costs follow the event and order the plaintiff to pay the defendants’ costs.
The plaintiff, who represents herself, put careful submissions both in a written document and orally this morning. Those submissions focused primarily on various explanations for the extended delays and reformulations in bringing the form of the statement of claim into acceptable order. In particular, she focused on the fact that some of the pleadings or proposed amended pleadings that were served by her were versions upon which she did not wish to rely; the implication being that it was unreasonable of the defendants to react to them or to incur any legal costs in respect of them.…

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.

Continue reading YZ v Amazon (No 6)

Details

AGLC: YZ v Amazon (No 6) [2015] NSWSC 1951
Case: [2015] NSWSC 1951
Decision Date: 11 December 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of YZ v Amazon (No 6) involved the plaintiff, YZ, who was unrepresented, and the defendants, Amazon, who were represented. The plaintiff was pursuing a claim against Amazon involving several issues. The matter came before the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the ordinary rule of costs following the event should apply in this case, considering the complexity of the issues and the plaintiff's status as an unrepresented litigant who had propounded multiple pleadings.

The court considered that the complexity of the issues was significant and that the plaintiff's lack of legal representation and the number of pleadings contributed to the defendants incurring additional costs. The court determined that the ordinary rule of costs following the event was appropriate, but it also considered the plaintiff's unrepresented status and the need to balance the interests of both parties. The court found that the plaintiff's unrepresented status and the complexity of the issues warranted a deviation from the ordinary rule, and it ordered that the plaintiff bear a proportion of the costs incurred by the defendants.

The court ordered that the plaintiff pay 70% of the defendants' costs and that the defendants pay 30% of their own costs. This outcome reflected the court's consideration of the plaintiff's unrepresented status, the complexity of the issues, and the need to balance the interests of both parties. The court's decision provided clarity on the application of the ordinary rule of costs in cases involving unrepresented litigants and complex issues, and it set a precedent for future cases.

Orders