Heperu Pty Ltd & Ors v Morgan Brooks Pty Ltd & Ors (No 2) [2008] NSWSC 80

Heperu Pty Ltd & Ors v Morgan Brooks Pty Ltd & Ors (No 2) [2008] NSWSC 80

The Court would not quantify damages against Morgan Brooks because the Plaintiffs' calculations relied on material not all in evidence and Morgan Brooks had disputed the calculation and had not had the opportunity to contest all of the material. A Bullock order was refused because Morgan Brooks had not said or done anything that led the Plaintiffs to sue Ms Belle; the Plaintiffs' joinder of Ms Belle was their own decision. The additional costs order based on prolongation of the trial was also refused because the delay resulted from Mr Aulsebrook's inexperience rather than unreasonable conduct or perverse resistance to proper procedure.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 February 2008
Procedural Posture
Consequential Orders; Costs / Finalisation of Orders After Judgment Delivered on 12 December 2007
Outcome
Orders as in Short Minutes; no additional costs order against First Defendant.
Legal Topics
['bullock Order' 'litigant in Person' 'self Represented Corporate Litigant' 'assessment of Damages' 'consequential Orders']
['civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['bullock Order' 'litigant in Person' 'self Represented Corporate Litigant' 'assessment of Damages' 'consequential Orders']

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

Consequential Orders; Costs / Finalisation of Orders After Judgment Delivered on 12 December 2007

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether judgment against Morgan Brooks should quantify damages and interest on calculations based on material not all in evidence and disputed by Morgan Brooks.' 'Whether Morgan Brooks should be ordered, by way of a Bullock order, to pay 20% of the costs the Plaintiffs must pay to the successful Fourth Defendant, Ms Belle.' "Whether Morgan Brooks should pay part of Ms Belle's costs because the trial was prolonged by the inexperience of Morgan Brooks' non-lawyer director appearing for it."]

Ratio Decidendi

The Court would not quantify damages against Morgan Brooks because the Plaintiffs' calculations relied on material not all in evidence and Morgan Brooks had disputed the calculation and had not had the opportunity to contest all of the material. A Bullock order was refused because Morgan Brooks had not said or done anything that led the Plaintiffs to sue Ms Belle; the Plaintiffs' joinder of Ms Belle was their own decision. The additional costs order based on prolongation of the trial was also refused because the delay resulted from Mr Aulsebrook's inexperience rather than unreasonable conduct or perverse resistance to proper procedure.

Court Disposition

Orders as in Short Minutes; no additional costs order against First Defendant.

Orders

  • ['Paragraph 10 of the Plaintiffs\' Short Minutes was amended to read: "Judgment for the Plaintiffs against the First Defendant for damages and interest to be agreed or, failing agreement, as assessed."' "The Plaintiffs' application for a Bullock order requiring Morgan Brooks to pay 20% of the costs payable to Ms...