Raashed and Anor v Bangladesh Islamic Centre of NSW Inc [2018] NSWSC 1688

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Raashed and Anor v Bangladesh Islamic Centre of NSW Inc [2018] NSWSC 1688 Hearing dates: 2 November 2018 Decision date: 07 November 2018 Jurisdiction: Equity - Expedition List Before: Sackar J Decision: Costs See para [61] Catchwords: COSTS – party/party - exceptions to general rule that costs follow event - offers of compromise/Calderbank offers - whether Calderbank offers warrants indemnity costs - where neither party wholly successful Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) Cases Cited: Bartlett v Australia & New Zealand Banking Group Ltd (No 2) (2016) 92 NSWLR 670; [2016] NSWCA 142 Rashid Raashed v Bangladesh Islamic Centre of New South Wales [2018] NSWSC 1001 SMEC Testing Services Pty Ltd v Campbelltown City Council [2000] NSWCA 323 Texts Cited: n/a Category: Costs Parties: Rashid Raashed ( first plaintiff) Yunus Ali Mondal (second plaintiff) Bangladesh Islamic Centre of NSW Inc (defendant) Representation: Counsel: A Ogborne (plaintiffs) J Zmood (defendant)

Solicitors: MIC lawyers (plaintiffs) Executive legal (defendant) File Number(s): 2017/258940

Judgment

Procedural history 1. After an adjourned hearing on 6-9 March 2018 I finally heard this matter in May and June 2018, giving judgment in Rashid Raashed v Bangladesh Islamic Centre of New South Wales [2018] NSWSC 1001 on 29 June 2018 (principal judgment). 2. Due to a series of difficulties with legal representation, it took some time before the parties were heard on the final form of any orders or declarations sought given my judgment and on the question of costs. 3. On 2 November 2018 I heard both parties on the orders they sought and on the question of costs. In oral argument it became apparent to me that there was in substance no controversy over the appropriate orders to be made in this matter and I made declarations and orders on 2 November 2018 giving effect to my judgment. 4. This left the issue of costs outstanding, which this judgment addresses.