Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Universal 1919 Pty Limited v Barraket Stanton Lawyers Pty Ltd (No 2) [2015] NSWSC 541 Hearing dates: 7 May 2015 Date of orders: 07 May 2015 Decision date: 07 May 2015 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: McCallum J Decision: Defendants to pay plaintiff's costs of the proceedings. Catchwords: COSTS – general rule that costs follow the event Legislation Cited: Legal Profession Act 2004 (NSW), s 350 Cases Cited: Universal 1919 Pty Limited v Barraket Stanton Lawyers Pty Ltd [2015] NSWSC 540 Category: Costs Parties: Universal 1919 Pty Limited (Plaintiff) Barraket Stanton Lawyers Pty Ltd (First Defendant) 122 Pitt Street Pty Ltd (Second Defendant) Representation: Counsel: R Goodridge (Plaintiff) J Sharpe (Defendants) Solicitors: George Xylas Solicitor (Plaintiff) Barraket Stanton Lawyers (Defendants) File Number(s): 2014/343894 Publication restriction: None Judgment – ex tempore 1. HER HONOUR: I have this morning determined an application brought by a tenant who is obliged as a third party payer to pay its landlord's legal costs in connection with an admitted breach of the lease. For the reasons I have given orally this morning, the tenant has been successful in the proceedings in this Court, in particular in contending that it is entitled to have the landlord's costs assessed: Universal 1919 Pty Limited v Barraket Stanton Lawyers Pty Ltd [2015] NSWSC 540. 2. Ordinarily, costs follow the event. Mr Sharpe, who appears for the landlord and the solicitor, has argued that the "usual order" in an application under s 350 of the Legal Profession Act 2004 (NSW) (presumably a reference to subs (5) of that section) is that the applicant pay the costs, even if successful. This proceeding, however, has not been determined as such an application. Rather, I have held that the application did not require a determination under s 350(5), since it was not brought out of time. The reason I determined it was not brought out of time was the landlord's or solicitor's failure to provide information in response to a proper written request. 3. The landlord and solicitor submitted that the only reason for the present application was the assessor's determination to the contrary. I would respectfully see the matter differently. In my view, the one event that could have obviated the unfortunate and expensive dispute that has transpired between these parties is that the landlord and solicitor could have acceded to any one of the many reasonable requests for information made by the tenant. 4. One further submission relied upon in resisting an order for costs was that if, in due course, it transpires that the figure claimed by the landlord is right, it would be unjust if the landlord and solicitor had to bear the costs of the present application. Again, I would reiterate that the step which would have obviated the costs of this application is the provision of the information sought from the outset. 5. In my view, the appropriate order is that the defendants pay the plaintiff's costs of 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: 18 May 2015