Australia, Sept. 3 -- New South Wales Land and Environment Court issued text of the following judgement on Aug. 4:

1. On 20 April 2025, Pared Ltd ("the defendant") filed a Notice of Motion ("the motion") seeking that the Statement of Claim filed on 12 November 2024 ("SOC") by Mr Sam Flecknoe ("the plaintiff") be struck out pursuant to r 14.28(1)(a) and/or (b) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) ("UCPR"), or alternatively, that the plaintiff be ordered under r 15.1(1) of the UCPR to set out further particulars of the claim. The defendant also sought that the plaintiff would pay the defendant's costs of, and incidental to, the motion.

2. The Court delivered judgment in respect of the motion on 22 July 2024: Flecknoe v Pared Ltd [2025] NSWSC 775 ("the primary judgment").

3. The primary judgment concluded that the motion to strike out must fail, but that the alternative order sought, that the plaintiff file further particulars pursuant to r 15.10 of the UCPR, would be granted. The Court made orders reflecting the primary judgment on 28 July 2025.

4. The primary judgment noted that the outcome of the motion gave rise to a consideration as to whether each party should pay its own costs and expressed a preliminary view that a costs order should be made in those terms. In the event the parties did not agree with that preliminary view, the primary judgment made provision for the receipt of further submissions as to costs.

5. The parties took this opportunity, and the defendant sought orders that the plaintiff pay the defendant's costs of, and incidental to, the motion as well as costs thrown away by reason of the amendment to the pleadings, while the plaintiff sought an order for costs in the cause.

6. This judgment concerns the determination of costs on the motion.

SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES

The defendant

7. The defendant submitted that it succeeded in respect of its alternative relief sought for further particulars and therefore "succeeded the event".

8. Further, the defendant submitted that on 17 January 2025, prior to the motion, it "sought substantially" the particulars that the plaintiff was ordered to provide and, had the plaintiff provided an adequate response, the need for the motion would have been obviated.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/19863097e27d0d4af773d678)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.