Armstrong Strategic Management and Marketing Pty Limited v Expense Reduction Analysts Group Pty Ltd (No 10) [2017] NSWSC 16

Armstrong Strategic Management and Marketing Pty Limited v Expense Reduction Analysts Group Pty Ltd (No 10) [2017] NSWSC 16

It is appropriate in this complex and lengthy litigation to make a gross sum costs order in the amount of $5.75 million in favour of the defendants against the plaintiffs jointly and severally, as the evidence supports a fair estimation of party/party recoverable costs and the plaintiffs' conduct contributed to the expense. Indemnity costs are not warranted as the plaintiffs' refusal of settlement offers was not unreasonable. There is no proper basis for apportioning costs differently among the plaintiffs or for an order releasing the security for costs without notice to all interested parties.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 February 2017
Procedural Posture
Costs Application / Post Trial, Decision on Costs and Consequential Orders
Outcome
Gross sum costs order made for defendants—not on indemnity basis; no order for partial release of security; no order apportioning costs among plaintiffs; further orders to be heard separately.
Legal Topics
['costs' 'gross Sum Costs Orders' 'security for Costs' 'indemnity Costs' 'offers of Compromise']
['civil Procedure'] ['costs' 'gross Sum Costs Orders' 'security for Costs' 'indemnity Costs' 'offers of Compromise']

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

Costs Application / Post Trial, Decision on Costs and Consequential Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether to make a gross sum costs order.' 'Whether costs should be awarded on an indemnity basis or standard basis.' 'Whether an order for the partial release of security for costs should be made.' 'Whether to apportion costs liability between plaintiffs.']

Ratio Decidendi

It is appropriate in this complex and lengthy litigation to make a gross sum costs order in the amount of $5.75 million in favour of the defendants against the plaintiffs jointly and severally, as the evidence supports a fair estimation of party/party recoverable costs and the plaintiffs' conduct contributed to the expense. Indemnity costs are not warranted as the plaintiffs' refusal of settlement offers was not unreasonable. There is no proper basis for apportioning costs differently among the plaintiffs or for an order releasing the security for costs without notice to all interested parties.

Court Disposition

Gross sum costs order made for defendants—not on indemnity basis; no order for partial release of security; no order apportioning costs among plaintiffs; further orders to be heard separately.

Orders

  • ["The plaintiffs pay the defendants a gross sum of $5.75 million in respect of the defendants' costs of the proceedings, in addition to costs already paid or assessed."]