Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Reid v Wright [2014] NSWSC 929 Hearing dates: 17 June 2014 Decision date: 14 July 2014 Before: Harrison J Decision: Order that the costs of the defendant's motion seeking a more detailed response to her request for further and better particulars be the defendant's costs in the proceedings. Catchwords: COSTS - costs foreshadowed to be defendant's costs in proceedings - whether plaintiff should pay defendant's costs of a motion seeking a more detailed response to a request for further and better particulars - whether appropriate for a small proportion of costs to become the subject of a separate order Cases Cited: Reid v Wright [2014] NSWSC 795 Category: Costs Parties: Christine Reid (Plaintiff) Diane Wright t/a D M Wright and Associates Solicitors (Defendant) Representation: Counsel: O Jones (Plaintiff) B Phillips (Defendant) Solicitors: Greg Walsh & Co Solicitors (Plaintiff) DLA Piper (Defendant) File Number(s): 2013/234613 Publication restriction: Nil Judgment 1HIS HONOUR: Ms Wright seeks an order that Ms Reid pay the costs of Ms Wright's motion seeking answers to certain further and better particulars that were requested concerning Ms Reid's claim. I determined the original dispute and foreshadowed that the appropriate costs order might be that the costs of the motion be Ms Wright's costs in the proceedings: see Reid v Wright [2014] NSWSC 795. I said the following at [15]: "[15] The parties should if thought necessary bring in short minutes to reflect the orders I have foreshadowed. I propose to order that the costs of the motion should be the defendant's costs in the proceedings. If either party wishes to contend otherwise I will hear argument on the question of costs when convenient." 2As I indicated in my reasons for judgment, the issues concerning the particulars had significantly narrowed by the time the dispute reached me. That clearly means that a significant proportion of the costs generated by the dispute and expended in correspondence and the preparation of affidavits and the like by Ms Wright was to a great extent balanced by the corresponding costs incurred by Ms Reid. Only a smaller proportion of the costs were incurred by reference to a disagreement that called for my adjudication. 3My originally foreshadowed order would mean that Ms Wright would be entitled to recover costs incurred by her in this aspect of the proceedings if she is ultimately successful. Having considered the competing contentions concerning this issue, I remain of the view that my original thoughts about where the burden of these costs should lie was correct. It is not in my opinion appropriate that the small proportion of the costs referable to Ms Wright's success before me should become the subject of a separate order that they be paid by Ms Reid unless she is ultimately unsuccessful in her claims. 4Accordingly, I order that the costs of Ms Wright's motion seeking a more detailed response to her request for further and better particulars should be Ms Wright's costs in the proceedings. ********** DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated. Decision last updated: 14 July 2014