NSW Caselaw
New South Wales Supreme Court
CITATION : Mednis v Chand (No 4) [2003] NSWSC 727 HEARING DATE(S) : 07/08/03 JUDGMENT DATE : 8 August 2003
JUDGMENT OF : Gzell J DECISION : Plaintiff to have order for costs of proceedings. No order as to costs of summary termination applications
CATCHWORDS : PROCEDURE - Costs - Whether costs should be awarded on an indemnity basis - Cross claim with no prospect of success adding little to hearing time - Summons in part seeking order for costs before the expiration of 30 days from rendering bills of costs contrary to the Legal Profession Act 1987, s 192 - Plainitff unsuccessful on applications for summary termination of proceedings LEGISLATION CITED : Supreme Court Rules 1970 Legal Profession Act 1987 Oshlack v Richmond River Council (1998) 193 CLR 72 CASES CITED : Wentworth v Rogers [1999] NSWCA 403 Fountain Selected Meats (Sales) Pty Ltd v International Produce Merchants Pty Ltd (1988) 81 ALR 397 Colgate Palmolive Co v Cussons Pty Ltd (1993) 46 FCR 225 Aivars Rolands Mednis t/a MacElbing Mednis & Associates - Plaintiff PARTIES : Harry Chand - 1st Defendant Mark Rumore - 2nd Defendant Leichardt Municipal Council - 3rd Defendant FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 3389/01 COUNSEL : Mr M Campbell - For the Plaintiff Mr M K Rollinson - For the 1st Defendant MacElbing Mednis & Associates Solicitors SOLICITORS : Johnston Vaughan Solicitors Mark Rumore Solicitor Pike, Pike & Fenwick Solicitors
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES EQUITY DIVISION
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