Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Hill v Navitas English Pty Limited [2015] NSWSC 1053 Hearing dates: 29 July 2015 Date of orders: 29 July 2015 Decision date: 29 July 2015 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Schmidt J Decision: No order as to costs. Catchwords: COSTS - compromise reached - no order as to costs - each party to bear their own costs Legislation Cited: Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) Cases Cited: Re Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs; Ex-parte Lai Qin [1997] HCA 6; 186 CLR 622 Category: Costs Parties: Steven Hill (Plaintiff) Navitas English Pty Limited ACN 003 916 701 Representation: Counsel: Mr MW Sneddon (Plaintiff) Ms V Whittaker (Defendant) Solicitors: McLaughlin & Riordan Lawyers (Plaintiff) Banki Haddock Fiora (Defendant) File Number(s): 2105/69015 Publication restriction: Nil EX TEMPORE Judgment 1. HER HONOUR: I propose to make, by consent, the orders sought by the parties in MFI 3. 2. I do not propose to make any order as to costs. 3. The appropriate order, as discussed in the authorities, when there is a compromise is usually that there should be no order as to costs and that each party, as a result, should bear their own costs. 4. That is because the usual order is that costs follow the event (see Rule 42.1 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW)). When there is an agreement such as that which has been reached here, there is no event (see Re Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs; Ex-parte Lai Qin [1997] HCA 6; 186 CLR 622 at 624-625). 5. For its part, Navitas has submitted that there should be a departure from that conclusion in this case, given the nature of the dispute; how that was pursued by Mr Hill on a basis, it says, which extended far beyond the terms of the parties' agreement; and which has resulted this morning, as the result of what then developed, in a contraction of his claim, in a way that is reflected in the consent orders. 6. It seems to me inappropriate, in the circumstances, to delve very far into the merits of what was advanced by Navitas on the one hand and Mr Hill on the other. It seems apparent to me that what he was pursuing went beyond the parties' agreement. It also seems apparent, contrary to what he was earlier told about the records which were kept by Navitas, which suggested a departure from the requirements of the agreement, that it has now emerged, after the summons was filed, that these records exist. 7. In all of the circumstances, this, I think, is a good illustration of why it is that ordinarily, in a situation such as this, where a compromise is reached, that the Court makes no order as to costs. ********** 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: 30 July 2015