Konecranes Pty Limited v Stephens [1999] NSWSC 582

Konecranes Pty Limited v Stephens [1999] NSWSC 582

The defendants were liable for the plaintiffs' costs up to and including 14 August 1998 and the costs of implementing the consent orders because the first defendant's conduct made the proceedings necessary: he possessed and controlled the first plaintiff's confidential material, initially did not admit holding it, and the proceedings had to be instituted and pursued before delivery up and consent relief were obtained. Indemnity costs were justified for that period because the first defendant had no legal right to the property, dishonestly asserted he did not have it, and the defendants' resistance was not grounded in any bona fide claim of right. The plaintiffs were not entitled to costs...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 June 1999
Procedural Posture
Equity Division Proceedings Concerning Confidential Material and Information Allegedly Taken and Used by a Former Employee and a Competing Company / Hearing as to Costs After Consent Orders and After the Plaintiffs Elected Not to Pursue Damages
Outcome
Costs ordered for the plaintiffs in part: indemnity costs up to and including 14 August 1998 and implementation of the consent orders, and party and party costs for the hearing on 11 June 1999.
Legal Topics
['anton Pillar Order' 'delivery Up of Confidential Material' 'injunctive Relief by Undertaking' 'indemnity Costs' 'party and Party Costs' 'effect of Consent Orders Silent as to Costs']
['equity' 'civil Procedure' 'costs' 'confidential Information'] ['anton Pillar Order' 'delivery Up of Confidential Material' 'injunctive Relief by Undertaking' 'indemnity Costs' 'party and Party Costs' 'effect of Consent Orders Silent as to Costs']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Equity Division Proceedings Concerning Confidential Material and Information Allegedly Taken and Used by a Former Employee and a Competing Company / Hearing as to Costs After Consent Orders and After the Plaintiffs Elected Not to Pursue Damages

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the consent orders made on 12 and 14 August 1998, which were silent as to costs, precluded an application for costs or implied that each party would bear its or his own costs.' "Whether the defendants should pay the plaintiffs' costs of the proceedings." 'Whether any costs payable by the defendants should be on the indemnity basis or only on the party and party basis.' 'Whether the plaintiffs were entitled to costs after implementation of the consent orders when the only remaining claim was damages and the plaintiffs chose not to pursue damages.']

Ratio Decidendi

The defendants were liable for the plaintiffs' costs up to and including 14 August 1998 and the costs of implementing the consent orders because the first defendant's conduct made the proceedings necessary: he possessed and controlled the first plaintiff's confidential material, initially did not admit holding it, and the proceedings had to be instituted and pursued before delivery up and consent relief were obtained. Indemnity costs were justified for that period because the first defendant had no legal right to the property, dishonestly asserted he did not have it, and the defendants' resistance was not grounded in any bona fide claim of right. The plaintiffs were not entitled to costs...

Court Disposition

Costs ordered for the plaintiffs in part: indemnity costs up to and including 14 August 1998 and implementation of the consent orders, and party and party costs for the hearing on 11 June 1999.

Orders

  • ['The defendants pay the costs of the plaintiffs proceedings up to and including 14 August 1998 together with any costs of the implementation of orders made on 12 and 4 August 1998, such costs to be on the indemnity basis, and the costs of the hearing on 11 June 1999, such costs to be on the party and party basis.'...