NSW Caselaw
Supreme Court New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Sergio Andres Chocron v Mina Onkoud (No 2) [2020] NSWSC 214 Hearing dates: 10 March 2020 Date of orders: 10 March 2020 Decision date: 10 March 2020 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: N Adams J Decision: (1) Application to vary costs order, Order 3, made on 23 December 2019 is refused. (2) Each party is to pay their costs of this application. Catchwords: COSTS – application to vary costs order – third party costs – action by defendant's brother-in-law – enforcement of a mortgage – whether husband as third party should pay costs – whether husband played active part in the litigation – whether husband "person of straw" – interests of justice test Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), s 98(1)(a) Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW), 38(1) Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), Part 42, s 42.1 Cases Cited: Brand2Content t/as Franchise Works v Dalby [2019] NSWCA 16 FPM Constructions Pty Ltd v Council of the City of Blue Mountains [2005] NSWCA 340 Heath v Greenacre Business Park Pty Ltd [2016] NSWCA 34 Knight v FP Special Assets Limited (1992) 174 CLR 178; [1992] HCA 28 Oshlack v Richmond River Council (1998) 193 CLR 72; [1998] HCA 11 Sergio Andres Chocron v Mina Onkoud [2019] NSWSC 1823 Yu v CAO (2015) 91 NSWLR 190; [2015] NSWCA 276 Category: Costs Parties: Sergio Andres Chocron (Plaintiff) Mina Onkoud (Defendant) Fabian Chocron (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: Ms N Obrart (Defendant)
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate