Solarus Projects Pty Ltd v Vero Insurance (No 9) [2015] NSWSC 503

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Solarus Projects Pty Ltd v Vero Insurance (No 9) [2015] NSWSC 503 Hearing dates: In Chambers – on the papers Date of orders: 07 May 2015 Decision date: 07 May 2015 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Campbell J Decision: The defendant to pay the plaintiff's costs of and incidental to the determination of the separate questions on the ordinary basis. Catchwords: COSTS – determination of separate question – determination a separate event – costs to follow the event Legislation Cited: Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) Cases Cited: Ajkay v Hickey & Co. Pty Ltd [2011] NSWSC 822; Floruit Holdings Pty Ltd v Sebastian – Builders and Developers Pty Ltd [2009] NSWCA 411; O'Keefe Nominees Pty Ltd v BP Australia (No 2) (1995) 55 FCR 591; Turkmani v Visvalingam (No 2) [2009] NSWCA 279; Waters v PC Henderson (Aust) Pty Ltd (1994) 254 ALR 328 Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: Solarus Projects Pty Ltd (Receivers and Managers appointed (in Liquidation) (Plaintiff) Vero Insurance Limited (Defendant) Representation: Counsel: A Leopold SC with Ms A Horvath (Plaintiff) AS Martin SC with J Hynes (Defendant)

Solicitors: File Number(s): 2011/154276

Judgment 1. On 14th April 2015 I decided questions ordered to be determined separately under Rule 28.2 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) in favour of the plaintiff (Solarus) by ruling that it was an "insured" within the meaning of sub-paragraph (b) of the extended definition of insured in the Schedule to a Project Contract Works Insurance Policy issued by the defendant (Vero) on 2nd May 2007 (see [2015] NSWSC 412). I did not pronounce any order for costs. 2. By written submissions filed on 21st April 2015, with my leave, Solarus submits "Vero should be ordered to pay, on the ordinary basis, Solarus' costs of and incidental to the separate hearing on 5 September 2014". (Solarus submissions, p 7[9]). By its written submissions filed on 28th April 2015, Vero argues that the costs of and incidental to the separate hearing should be reserved to the intent that the costs of each party stand as its costs in the principal proceedings under Rule 42.7 UCPR (Vero submissions p 1[1]). In the alternative, Vero submits that the appropriate order is "no order as to costs". An order in this form may engage Rule 42.7(1)(b), to the same effect.