//
[2025] NSWSC 337
General information, not legal advice.
Supreme Court of NSW
2025-04-08
Hammerschlag CJ in Eq
Original judgment source is linked above.
Zoe will write a short plain-English summary of this judgment and email it to you for free: what it was about, what the court decided and why. It can take up to a minute.
General information, not legal advice.
Or create a free account to save it and ask Zoe follow-up questions.
Source: NSW Caselaw (www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au). Converted to plain text by ZoeLaw. Not the official version.
Medium Neutral Citation: KB v Burrun Dalai Corporation Inc (Further Costs) [2025] NSWSC 337
Hearing dates: On the papers
Date of orders: 8 April 2025
Decision date: 08 April 2025
Jurisdiction: Equity
Before: Hammerschlag CJ in Eq
Decision: The plaintiffs are to pay the second and third defendants’ costs.
Catchwords: COSTS – No issue of principle
Legislation Cited: Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) r 42.1
Cases Cited: KB v Burrun Dalai Corporation Inc (Costs) [2025] NSWSC 252
Category: Costs
Parties: KB (First Plaintiff)
LM (Second Plaintiff)
Burrun Dalai Corporation Inc (First Defendant)
Secretary, Department of Communities and Justice (Second Defendant)
Office of the Children’s Guardian (Third Defendant)
Representation: Counsel:
M Anderson (Second and Third Defendants)
Solicitors:
First Plaintiff (self-represented)
Second Plaintiff (self-represented)
Riverside Legal (First Defendant)
Crown Solicitor’s Office (Second and Third Defendants)
Legal Aid NSW (Children’s Independent Legal Representative)
File Number(s): 2025/00005413
Publication restriction: Pursuant to an order made on 10 January 2025, there is to be no publication of the name of, or any information that would identify the plaintiffs, the subject children, and any other children who are under the parental responsibility of the Minister for Families and Communities until 14 August 2040. This order operates throughout the Commonwealth of Australia.
On 25 March 2025, I handed down judgment on the first defendant’s costs, which I ordered should be paid by the plaintiffs: KB v Burrun Dalai Corporation Inc (Costs) [2025] NSWSC 252.
The costs of the second defendant (the Secretary) and third defendant (the Children’s Guardian) remain to be dealt with.
I received written submissions from them dated 3 March 2025 and written submissions from the plaintiffs on 4 April 2025.
The only question is whether costs should follow the event in accordance with r 42.1 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW).
In urging the Court to depart from the usual rule, the plaintiffs make a number of complaints about the conduct of the litigation by the Secretary and the Children’s Guardian.
These complaints include conduct before the litigation commenced and a failure to comply with directions of the Court. These matters do not affect the reality that the outcome was a loss for the plaintiffs in proceedings which were not well conceived*.*
I do not consider that there is any good reason to depart from the rule that costs follow the event.
One complaint is about the manner in which the proceedings were conducted. It includes an assertion that excessive legal fees were incurred by the defendants.
I wish to make it abundantly clear that the order that the plaintiffs pay the costs of the Secretary and the Children’s Guardian says nothing of the quantum of costs that should be allowed. This is a matter for assessment. The assessment process will no doubt take account of whether any costs have been duplicated or were unnecessarily or unreasonably incurred. Quantum may ultimately be a matter of little concern given the avowed impecuniosity of the plaintiffs, but the point still needed to be made.
The plaintiffs are to pay the second and third defendants’ costs.
**********
KB
Burrun Dalai Corporation Inc