Ventura v Higgins (No. 2) [2018] NSWDC 78

District Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Ventura v Higgins (No. 2) [2018] NSWDC 78 Hearing dates: 23 March 2018 Date of orders: 23 March 2018 Decision date: 05 April 2018 Jurisdiction: Civil Before: Gibson DCJ Decision: (1) The defendants are to pay the plaintiffs' costs of the notice of motion filed on 15 February 2018 (including the application today and other proceedings before the District Court) on the ordinary basis, to be assessed forthwith pursuant to r 42.7 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), such costs to proceed to assessment as opposed to being the subject of a gross sum costs order pursuant to s 98 Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW). (2) Note that the application by the plaintiffs to revoke Ashford DCJ's order is refused. Catchwords: COSTS – applications for costs in the District Court of New South Wales following transfer of the proceedings to the Supreme Court – application of the principles concerning costs following the event – whether an order for indemnity costs should be made – whether costs of the District Court should be payable forthwith – whether a solicitor acting for himself and a corporation of which he was a sole director was entitled to seek his legal costs under the Chorley principle – whether, if such costs were payable, the plaintiffs were entitled to a gross sum costs order – defendants ordered to pay plaintiffs' costs but plaintiffs' application for indemnity costs and a gross sum costs order refused Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), ss 98, 101, 140 and 144 District Court Act 1973 (NSW), s 44 Legal Profession Act 2004 (NSW) Legal Profession Uniform Law (NSW) Legal Profession Uniform Law Application Act 2014 (NSW) Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), rr 42.1 and 42.7 Cases Cited: Bobb v Wombat Securities Pty Ltd (No 2) [2013] NSWSC 863 Chaina v Presbyterian Church (NSW) Property Trust (No 26) [2014] NSWSC 1009 Coshott v Spencer (2016) 22 DCLR (NSW) 115 Coshott v Spencer [2017] NSWCA 118 Coshott v Spencer [2017] HCATrans 263 Cretazzo v Lombardi (1975) 13 SASR 4 Croker v Commissioner of Taxation (2002) 124 FCR 286 Factortame v Secretary of State [2002] EWCA Civ 22 George v Fletcher (Trustee) (No 2) [2010] FCAFC 71 Ghosh v Miller (No 2) [2016] NSWSC 713 Guss v Veenhuizen (No 2) (1976) 136 CLR 47 In the matter of Optimisation Australia Pty Ltd (Costs) [2018] NSWSC 280 London Scottish Benefit Society v Chorley, Crawford and Chester (1884) 13 QBD 872 Mahommed v Unicomb [2017] NSWCA 65 McMahon v John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd (No 8) [2014] NSWSC 673 Optical Express Ltd and others v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2017] EWHC 2707 (QB) Oshlack v Richmond River Council (1998) 193 CLR 72 Palladium Consulting Pty Ltd [2013] NSWSC 92 Poulos v Eberstaller (No 2) [2014] NSWSC 235 QRS v Legal Profession Board of Tasmania (No 2) [2017] TASFC 13 Re Optimisation Australia Pty Ltd (Costs) [2018] NSWSC 280 Smith v Trafford Housing Trust [2012] EWHC 3320 (Ch) Star Diamond v Diamond (No 4) [2013] NSWCA 811 Ventura v Higgins [2018] NSWDC 49 Von Reisner v Commonwealth (No 2) [2008] FCA 430 Texts Cited: Federal Court Costs Practice Note (GPN-COSTS) Category: Costs Parties: First Plaintiff: Anthony Ventura Second Plaintiff: Barescape Pty Limited First Defendant: Matthew Gordon Higgins Second Defendant: Bacchus Holdings Pty Limited Representation: Counsel: Plaintiffs: Mr A Ventura (solicitor) Defendants: Mr R Faraday-Bensley (solicitor)