Croc’s Franchising Pty Ltd v Alamdo Holdings Pty Ltd (No 3) [2023] NSWCA 316

Croc’s Franchising Pty Ltd v Alamdo Holdings Pty Ltd (No 3) [2023] NSWCA 316

Given mixed success and the appellants prevailing on the principal issue relating to construction of the COVID Regulation, but unsuccessful on numerous discrete issues, the court, exercising its discretion, apportioned costs so the first respondent pays 70% of appellants' appeal costs. No order for costs was made regarding the Amended Commercial List Statement, reflecting the mixed outcome and that each party should bear its own costs. Funds paid into court by the appellants were ordered to be released to the respective parties in accordance with common agreement.

Parties
First Appellant: Croc's Franchising Pty Ltd; Second Appellant: Brett Christopher Aldons; Third Appellant: Lawrence John Cusdin; First Respondent: Alamdo Holdings Pty Ltd; Second Respondent: State of New South Wales
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 December 2023
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Costs Determination Following Previous Judgments
Outcome
Orders as to costs and release of funds paid into court
Legal Topics
Costs, Practice and Procedure, Funds Paid Into Court, COVID Regulation
Civil Procedure Equity Costs Practice and Procedure Funds Paid Into Court COVID Regulation

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 3 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Croc's Franchising Pty Ltd

First Appellant

Brett Christopher Aldons

Second Appellant

Lawrence John Cusdin

Third Appellant

Alamdo Holdings Pty Ltd

First Respondent

State of New South Wales

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Costs Determination Following Previous Judgments

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Appropriate apportionment of costs on appeal
  2. 2 Appropriate apportionment of costs of the Amended Commercial List Statement
  3. 3 Release of funds paid into court

Ratio Decidendi

Given mixed success and the appellants prevailing on the principal issue relating to construction of the COVID Regulation, but unsuccessful on numerous discrete issues, the court, exercising its discretion, apportioned costs so the first respondent pays 70% of appellants' appeal costs. No order for costs was made regarding the Amended Commercial List Statement, reflecting the mixed outcome and that each party should bear its own costs. Funds paid into court by the appellants were ordered to be released to the respective parties in accordance with common agreement.

Court Disposition

Orders as to costs and release of funds paid into court

Orders

  • First respondent to pay 70% of the appellants' costs of the appeal filed 19 August 2021.
  • No order for costs of the proceedings on the Amended Commercial List Statement filed 19 August 2021.