Binge-Grose v State of New South Wales [2017] NSWSC 388

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Binge-Grose v State of New South Wales [2017] NSWSC 388 Hearing dates: 4 April 2017 Decision date: 11 April 2017 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Adamson J Decision: See paragraph [93]. Catchwords: COSTS – indemnity costs orders sought by plaintiff when defendant admitted liability – complex case requiring analysis of documents from several sources – need to assess conduct of defendant by reference to chronology rather than with hindsight – onus on practitioner certifying defence

COSTS – disparity between ordinary costs and indemnity costs not to be bridged by reference to plaintiff's needs as opposed to defendant's conduct of the proceedings

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – no departure from Model Litigant Policy Legislation Cited: Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998, ss 24, 26, 27, 28, 29 Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), Part 6, Division 1; s 56 Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), s 48(1)(b) Cases Cited: Binge-Grose by her tutor Binge v State of New South Wales [2016] NSWSC 1228 Modbury Triangle Shopping Centre Pty Ltd v Anzil (2000) 205 CLR 254; [2000] HCA 61 Oshlack v Richmond River Council (1998) 193 CLR 72; [1998] HCA 11 Texts Cited: Model Litigant Policy for Civil Litigation Category: Costs Parties: Asharney Rose Binge-Grose (Plaintiff) State of New South Wales (Defendant) Representation: Counsel: H Marshall SC/C Smith (Plaintiff) M Fordham SC (Defendant)