Kelly v Davis (No.2) [2022] NSWDC 376

District Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Kelly v Davis (No.2) [2022] NSWDC 376 Hearing dates: On the papers Date of orders: 29 August 2022 Decision date: 29 August 2022 Jurisdiction: Civil Before: Abadee DCJ Decision: See paragraph 23 Catchwords: COSTS – plaintiff's unsuccessful defamation suit against two defendants – Calderbank offers served – application for partial indemnity costs orders - no issue of principle Legislation Cited: Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) rr 20.26, 42.1, 42.2 Cases Cited: Calderbank v Calderbank (1975) 3 All ER 333 Kelly v Davis & Anor [2022] NSWDC 352 Category: Costs Parties: Mr M Kelly (plaintiff) Mr O Davis (first defendant) Ms J Chan (third defendant) Representation: Mr Kelly represented himself Mr Elachkar (Counsel) for the first defendant Mr Vogel (solicitor) for the third defendant File Number(s): 2020/00272992 Publication restriction: Nil

REASONS FOR Judgment

Background 1. On 18 August 2022 I delivered reasons for judgment in a defamation suit which the plaintiff (Mr Kelly) brought against the first defendant (Mr Davis) and the third defendant (Ms Chan). Those reasons were published on Caselaw [1] (hereafter 'My Earlier Reasons'). Mr Kelly did not succeed in either of his claims. After referring to two of the 'usual' rules concerning costs (in rr 42.1 and 42.2 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), I determined that the question of costs, in respect to each claim, be reserved and allowed the parties opportunity to make written submissions (of finite length) on costs. This judgment determines costs questions left outstanding from My Earlier Reasons. 2. The Court has received written submissions, concerning costs, from the first and third defendants, but not from the plaintiff. 3. At the hearing and through the proceeding, the plaintiff represented himself. Attempts had been made to procure representation of him; although, as noted in Mr Earlier Reasons, these were mostly unavailing. The first defendant was represented by Counsel, Mr Elachkar. The third defendant was represented by a solicitor, Mr Vogel.