Costs Not Automatically Follow Event in Mixed Success Cases
📌 In brief
In this case, the Court had to decide on costs after both parties achieved some success but not entirely. The Court ruled that costs should not automatically follow the event but may need to be apportioned based on the degree of success.
📚 Full judgment
The summary, holding and questions above are VadeLab’s own material. The official decision itself is published by the court, and we do not reproduce it on this page.
📄 Read the full judgment⚖️ View on the official court website ↗
⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this
✅ Tends to be accepted
- The court recognized that the plaintiff succeeded in his main claim and thus should receive costs for that claim.
- The court acknowledged that the defendants had some success in their cross-claim and therefore should receive costs for that part.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The court did not agree with the defendants' proposal that each party should bear their own costs.
- The court rejected the idea of reducing the amount of costs payable by the defendants to the plaintiff to reflect the partial success and failure of each party.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was about the allocation of legal costs between the parties after achieving partial success.
How did the court decide, and why?
The Court decided that costs should be apportioned based on the degree of success achieved by each party.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) s 90 and Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) r 42.1 were applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was whether costs should automatically follow the event or be apportioned based on the degree of success.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The judgment does not specify the evidence or documents that mattered.