MEAD v FARROW MORTGAGE SERVICES PTY LTD (IN LIQUIDATION); COLLINS v FARROW MORTGAGE SERVICES PTY LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) [1993] NSWCA 177

MEAD v FARROW MORTGAGE SERVICES PTY LTD (IN LIQUIDATION); COLLINS vy FARROW MORTGAGE SERVICES PTY LTD (IN LIQUIDATION)

SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES — COURT OF APPEAL

CLARKE JA, HANDLEY JA and Cripps JA 22 April 1993

[1993] NSWCA 177

Clarke JA. The order of the Court is that both summonses be dismissed with costs. The Court has given consideration to the making of a special costs order in this case because of a prima facie view it was hard to justify the presence of two counsel on behalf of the opponent. The order that the Court was considering was an order that the costs be limited to include one counsel and the presence of one solicitor in Court.

However, Mr Coles has submitted that the Court has not in the past intervened in the manner in which we have proposed intervention today. In all the circumstances, the Court has decided that it should not make a special order.

However, the fact that the Court does not make a special order should not be seen as in any way inhibiting the taxation office or imposing any fetter on the taxation officer's discretion to limit theallowance of the costs in all the circumstances to those costs which he or she regarded as appropriate.

(Mr Hamilton applied for a stay)

The Court is not disposed to grant a stay of the execution of judgment of Rolfe, J given on 10 December 1992.

Orders accordingly.