NSW Caselaw
Court of Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Sckaff v Sckaff (No 2) [2024] NSWCA 225 Hearing dates: On the papers Date of orders: 17 September 2024 Decision date: 17 September 2024 Before: Leeming JA; Mitchelmore JA; Stern JA Decision: 1. Declare that the appellants are entitled to possession of the property at [No 6] (the Property). 2. Order that within 90 days, the respondents give to the appellants vacant possession of the Property in good order and condition. 3. Order that there be no order as to the costs of the proceedings at first instance, with the intention that the parties bear their own costs. 4. Order that, subject to order 5 below, the respondents pay the appellants' costs of the appeal. 5. Order that the appellants pay 50% of the respondents' costs of the application for further orders including costs after the Court's principal judgment was delivered. Catchwords: COSTS — appeal allowed on terms — whether plaintiff acted unreasonably in rejecting Calderbank offer — whether partial success of plaintiff warranted favourable costs order — whether successful appellants' obligation to pay compensation should be stayed pending assessment of costs Legislation Cited: District Court Act 1973 (NSW), s 134 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), rr 20.26, 42.1, 51.49 Cases Cited: Ainger v Coffs Harbour City Council (No 2) [2007] NSWCA 212 Bathurst Regional Council as Trustee for the Bathurst City Council Crown Reserves Reserve Trust v Thompson (No 2) [2012] NSWCA 420 Bluth v Boyded Industries Pty Ltd (No 2) [2024] NSWCA 194 Boensch v Bingham [2024] NSWCA 116 C&V Engineering Services Pty Ltd v Metropolitan Demolitions Pty Ltd (No 2) [2023] NSWCA 240 Calderbank v Calderbank [1975] 3 All ER 333 Horseshoe Pastoral Company Pty Ltd v Murray Smith (Trading as South Coast Tile & Slate Company) (Court of Appeal, 7 November 1995, unreported) Sckaff v Sckaff [2024] NSWCA 207 Category: Costs Parties: Richard Sckaff (First Appellant) Nada Sckaff (Second Appellant) George Sckaff (First Respondent) Anne Thompson (Second Respondent) Representation: Counsel: J Lazarus SC / J Sukkar (Appellants) C Wood SC / N Obrart (Respondents)
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate