Adamson v Liu & Ors (No. 2) [2009] NSWSC 864

New South Wales Supreme Court

CITATION : Adamson v Liu & Ors (No. 2) [2009] NSWSC 864

22 June 2009, HEARING DATE(S) : Written Submissions 6/07/09, 13/07/09 Mention-30 July 2009

JUDGMENT DATE : 31 August 2009

JUDGMENT OF : Forster J at 1

CATCHWORDS : An unsuccessful party's financial situation does not bear on the costs orders to be made against him - Court should not assume that assessment of costs will miscarry.

CATEGORY : Consequential orders

CASES CITED : Adamson v Liu & Ors [2009] NSWSC 663

Christopher Michael Adamson PARTIES : Adeline Marie Liu Kenneth John Ede

FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 5312/04

COUNSEL : Plaintiff- in person Defendant- R. Horsley

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION : Supreme Court (Associate Judge)

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 5312/04

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER : Macready AsJ

LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION : 20/02/09 and 27/02/09

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES EQUITY DIVISION

FORSTER J

MONDAY, 31 AUGUST 2009

5312/04 CHRISTOPHER MICHAEL ADAMSON v ADELINE MARIE LIU & ANOR JUDGMENT 1 HIS HONOUR: I delivered my reasons for judgment in this matter on 21 July 2009: see Adamson v Liu & Ors [2009] NSWSC 663. 2 I had before me a Notice of Motion filed by the plaintiff on 24 March 2009. By that Notice of Motion (as subsequently amended pursuant to leave) the plaintiff sought to set aside certain of the orders made by Associate Justice Macready on 20 and 27 February 2009. 3 At the end of my reasons for judgment I said:

"33. The orders I propose to make are as follows: 1. Order 1 of the orders made by Macready AsJ on 20 February 2009 be set aside. 2. Orders 1, 2, 3, 6 and 8 of the orders made by Macready AsJ on 27 February 2009 be set aside. 3. The plaintiff have leave to file a Further Amended Statement of Claim within 21 days in the form of the draft Fourth Further Amended Statement of Claim annexed to the affidavit of the plaintiff affirmed on 5 October 2008, but varied in the following respects: (a) paragraphs 8 to 13 to be amended so as to conform with the principles expressed in this judgment; (b) the allegation of disclosure presently appearing in paragraph 11 to be particularised in the document itself; (c) paragraphs 14 to 26 to be amended so as to conform with the principles expressed in the judgment of Macready AsJ of 20 February 2009;