Supreme Court of NSW Dismisses Claims Without Ordering Costs
📌 In brief
The Supreme Court of NSW dismissed both the claim and cross-claim without ordering costs to follow the event. The court found that neither party had substantially succeeded in the proceedings, leading to the decision that each party should bear their own costs.
⚖️ Legal holding
A court may refuse to order costs to follow the event where neither party substantially succeeds in the proceedings.
📚 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 neither party substantially succeeded in the proceedings.
- The court acknowledged that significant costs would have been incurred regardless of the outcome.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The court rejected the argument that costs should follow the event due to one party's success.
- The court did not accept that the cross-claim was purely defensive and thus entitled to costs.
- The court refused to grant indemnity costs based on an offer of compromise that was not accepted.
- The court did not find it reasonable to award costs to a party whose offer resulted in a worse outcome than the actual judgment.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was about whether the costs should follow the event or if there were exceptions to this rule.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided to dismiss both the claim and cross-claim without ordering costs to follow the event because neither party substantially succeeded in the proceedings.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was that the costs should not follow the event because neither party had substantially succeeded in the proceedings.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was against the person who brought the case, as the claim was dismissed.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
For someone in a similar situation, the decision means that if neither party substantially succeeds in the proceedings, the court may choose not to order costs to follow the event.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The judgment does not specify particular evidence or documents that mattered.