Johnston v Allen (No 2) [2024] NSWSC 476

Johnston v Allen (No 2) [2024] NSWSC 476

Given that the respondents' use of documents constituted a prima facie breach of confidentiality obligations, and their subsequent applications were for indulgence (nunc pro tunc relief), neither Ms Gidley nor the Johnston children established a right to costs. The practical approach required treating all motions as part of the same dispute, and the making of the retrospective authorisation order did not entitle the respondents to costs. Accordingly, all parties should bear their own costs.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 April 2024
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion (ancillary Applications) / Costs Determination After Judgment on Substantive Applications
Outcome
Applications for costs by both Ms Gidley and the Johnstons refused; parties to bear their own costs.
Legal Topics
['costs' 'confidentiality Obligations' 'nunc Pro Tunc Orders']
['equity'] ['costs' 'confidentiality Obligations' 'nunc Pro Tunc 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

Notice of Motion (ancillary Applications) / Costs Determination After Judgment on Substantive Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether parties breached confidentiality obligations owed to the Court by using documents produced in proceedings for purposes of an external complaint' 'Whether orders should be made authorising disclosure nunc pro tunc' 'Whether costs should follow the event given findings of prima facie breaches and applications for indulgence']

Ratio Decidendi

Given that the respondents' use of documents constituted a prima facie breach of confidentiality obligations, and their subsequent applications were for indulgence (nunc pro tunc relief), neither Ms Gidley nor the Johnston children established a right to costs. The practical approach required treating all motions as part of the same dispute, and the making of the retrospective authorisation order did not entitle the respondents to costs. Accordingly, all parties should bear their own costs.

Court Disposition

Applications for costs by both Ms Gidley and the Johnstons refused; parties to bear their own costs.

Orders

  • ['No order as to costs; each party to bear their own costs.']