Birketu Pty Ltd v Westpac Banking Corporation (No 2) [2018] NSWSC 1125

Birketu Pty Ltd v Westpac Banking Corporation (No 2) [2018] NSWSC 1125

The court held that there was no sensible or functional distinction between costs incurred in reviewing draft statements and participating in the hearing on 4 May 2018, as both related to attempts to articulate the causes of action to meet the ninth and tenth defendants' objections. The hearing provided a forum for resolving these issues efficiently, and thus the costs associated should be paid by the plaintiffs.

Parties
First Plaintiff: Birketu Pty Ltd; Second Plaintiff: WIN Corporation Pty Ltd; First Defendant: Westpac Banking Corporation; Second Defendant: Sportsbet Pty Ltd; Third Defendant: Tabcorp Holdings Ltd; Fourth Defendant: Betfair Pty Ltd; Fifth Defendant: Brody Jack Clarke; Sixth Defendant: Tab Ltd; Seventh Defendant: Tabcorp Wagering (Vic) Pty Ltd; Eighth Defendant: Tabcorp ACT Pty Ltd; Ninth Defendant: John Ljubomir Atanaskovic; Tenth Defendant: Anthony Geoffrey Hartnell
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 July 2018
Procedural Posture
Costs Application Within Civil Proceedings / Post Interlocutory, Determination of Costs After Notice of Motion
Outcome
Plaintiffs ordered to pay the costs of the ninth and tenth defendants associated with the 4 May 2018 appearance and review of draft Commercial List Statements; other costs in the cause.
Legal Topics
Costs, Commercial List Procedure
Civil Procedure Costs Commercial List Procedure

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Birketu Pty Ltd

First Plaintiff

WIN Corporation Pty Ltd

Second Plaintiff

Westpac Banking Corporation

First Defendant

Sportsbet Pty Ltd

Second Defendant

Tabcorp Holdings Ltd

Third Defendant

Betfair Pty Ltd

Fourth Defendant

Brody Jack Clarke

Fifth Defendant

Tab Ltd

Sixth Defendant

Tabcorp Wagering (Vic) Pty Ltd

Seventh Defendant

Tabcorp ACT Pty Ltd

Eighth Defendant

John Ljubomir Atanaskovic

Ninth Defendant

Anthony Geoffrey Hartnell

Tenth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Costs Application Within Civil Proceedings / Post Interlocutory, Determination of Costs After Notice of Motion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiffs should pay the costs of the ninth and tenth defendants relating to objections to draft Commercial List Statement and court appearance on 4 May 2018.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that there was no sensible or functional distinction between costs incurred in reviewing draft statements and participating in the hearing on 4 May 2018, as both related to attempts to articulate the causes of action to meet the ninth and tenth defendants' objections. The hearing provided a forum for resolving these issues efficiently, and thus the costs associated should be paid by the plaintiffs.

Court Disposition

Plaintiffs ordered to pay the costs of the ninth and tenth defendants associated with the 4 May 2018 appearance and review of draft Commercial List Statements; other costs in the cause.

Orders

  • The plaintiffs are to pay the costs of the ninth and tenth defendants of and pertaining to the appearance on 4 May 2018, including their costs of reviewing drafts served on 13, 26 and 27 April 2018.
  • Otherwise, the costs of the plaintiffs' notice of motion filed on 13 April 2018 are costs in the cause.