Uncontested Case Results in $40,000 Gross Sum Costs Order
📌 In brief
In a case where the defendant did not file a defence, the NSW Supreme Court granted a gross sum costs order of $40,000 to the claimants. The Court decided that assessing the costs would be too complex and costly compared to the amount claimed.
📚 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 defendant's failure to comply with court directions justified a gross sum costs order.
- The likelihood of a protracted and costly assessment due to the defendant's conduct supported the order.
- The plaintiff's solicitor's extensive experience provided a reliable estimate for the gross sum.
- The actual costs incurred by the plaintiff were deemed reasonable for the case type.
- The court rounded down the claimed figure to guard against a potentially lower assessment amount.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was over the costs incurred by the claimants in a case where the defendant did not file a defence.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), section 98(4)(c) was applied.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was for the person who brought the case, granting them a gross sum costs order of $40,000 (including GST).
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
For someone in a similar situation, the decision means that if a costs assessment would be unnecessarily complex and costly, a gross sum costs order may be granted.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The evidence included the claimants' solicitor's affidavit detailing the costs incurred and the likelihood of recovery on assessment.