Father Evans v State of New South Wales (No 2) [2007] NSWSC 1381

New South Wales Supreme Court

CITATION : Father Evans v State of New South Wales (No 2) [2007] NSWSC 1381

HEARING DATE(S) : 23/11/07, 29/11/07

JUDGMENT DATE : 12 December 2007

JUDGMENT OF : Bell J at 1

DECISION : 1. The plaintiff in proceedings 20152/05 and the plaintiffs in each of the 24 related proceedings are to pay the defendants' costs of and incidental to the relief claimed in paragraph (1) of the motions; 2. The costs of and incidental to the relief claimed in paragraph (2) of the motions are costs in the cause; 3. No order as to the costs of and incidental to the relief claimed in paragraph (3) of the defendants' motions

CATCHWORDS : COSTS

Father John Evans (Plaintiff) PARTIES : State of NSW (1st Defendant) Sydney Catchment Authority (2nd Defendant)

FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 20152/05

D Nock SC / R Odgers (Plaintiff) COUNSEL : S Gregory / D Newton (1st Defendant) R Gambi (2nd Defendant)

McLachlan Childton Solicitors (Plaintiff) SOLICITORS : General Insurance Law Department (1st Defendant) Wotton Kearney Solicitors (2nd Defendant)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COMMON LAW DIVISION

BELL J

Wednesday 12 December 2007

20152/05 Father John Evans v State of New South Wales - Costs

JUDGMENT 1 BELL J: The first defendant filed an amended notice of motion on 31 January 2007 claiming orders (1) for the provision of answers to a composite request for particulars in a form reflecting the request; (2) for further and better particulars of the further amended statement of claim (FASOC) requested in letters of 19 January 2006 and 25 August 2006 and (3) further, or in the alternative, striking out the FASOC. The order that was the subject of the claim in paragraph (1) was consented to by the plaintiff in the course of a hearing before the Registrar. The relief claimed in paragraph (2) was determined by my judgment of 30 August 2007: Father Evans v State of New South Wales [2007] NSWSC 955. The first defendant has abandoned the claim to strike out the pleading contained in paragraph (3). 2 The second defendant filed a notice of motion on 31 March 2006 making the same claims for relief as those set out in the first defendant's amended motion. 3 This judgment deals with the costs of the defendants' motions.