Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Woods v Scipione (No 2) [2014] NSWSC 1331 Hearing dates: On the papers Decision date: 29 September 2014 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Adams J Decision: The first plaintiff is to pay the costs incurred by the first to third and fifth to tenth defendants except in respect of those incurred to defend the relief sought by the second and third plaintiffs. Catchwords: COSTS - usual order as to costs Legislation Cited: Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), rr 42.1, 42.20 Category: Costs Parties: Debra Margaret Woods (first plaintiff) Mark Warren Townley (second plaintiff) Elise Maree Townley (third plaintiff) Andrew Scipione (first defendant) Gregory Eugene Smith (second defendant) Sarah-Jane Morris (third defendant) Robert Walker (fourth defendant) Gregory Curry (fifth defendant) Anne Wooding-Giles (sixth defendant) John Duncan Gay (seventh defendant) Prudence Jane Goward (eighth defendant) Peter Langstaff (ninth defendant) Douglas R Pratt (tenth defendant) Representation: Solicitors: Crown Solicitor's Office (defendant) File Number(s): 2013/178066 Judgment 1On 15 August 2014 I gave judgment in this matter in respect of a summons filed by the plaintiffs against a number of defendants. I dismissed the summons in respect of the first to third and fifth to tenth defendants. In respect of the fourth defendant (a magistrate who filed a submitting appearance and on whose behalf submissions were made by the Attorney General), the relief sought could not be granted since there was no adequate statement of the basis for seeking that relief. In addition, a necessary party to such an application is the informant in the Local Court proceedings sought to be impugned, who was not a defendant. I gave leave to the plaintiff to re-plead her claim for relief in respect of the relevant proceedings if she sought to do so. 2When judgment was handed down I sought written submissions from the parties on the question of costs before determining that issue. Such submissions were to be filed and served by 22 August 2014. Submissions have been made on behalf of the first to third and fifth to eighth defendants, who may fairly be characterised as the active defendants. In short, these defendants seek costs against the first plaintiff, though not against the second and third plaintiffs, who were added to the proceedings late in the piece. 3Unless it appears to the Court that some other order should be made, costs will be ordered to follow the event: UCPR r 42.1. Rule 42.20 provides that, where the Court makes an order for dismissal of proceedings, then, unless the Court orders otherwise, the plaintiff must pay the defendant's costs of the proceedings to the extent to which it has been dismissed. 4As I have mentioned, the summons was dismissed as against the first to third and fifth to tenth defendants. There being no basis for not making the usual order, it is appropriate that the first plaintiff pay the costs of those defendants. 5So far as the costs of the fourth defendant are concerned I agree with the submission of the Attorney General that no order for costs should be made against him. However, it should be noted that the Attorney General undertook the argument on behalf of the fourth defendant and, if that argument had failed, must have borne the costs relating to it. However, since I concluded that the relief claimed against the fourth defendant could not be granted, the Attorney General succeeded to that extent and the usual order where leave to amend is sought will usually entail payment of the costs of the other party. In the circumstances it is appropriate that no order for costs should be made in respect of so much of the summons as concerned the fourth defendant. Orders 6The first plaintiff is to pay the costs incurred by the first to third and fifth to tenth defendants except in respect of those incurred to defend the relief sought by the second and third plaintiffs. ********** 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: 02 October 2014