Dreamstreet Lending Pty Ltd v Weiss (No 3) [2023] FCA 825

Dreamstreet Lending Pty Ltd v Weiss (No 3) [2023] FCA 825

Given mixed success, costs orders reflect the unreasonable refusal of offers of compromise/Calderbank offers by Dreamstreet, the insignificant damages obtained, and the disproportionate pursuit of litigation. Each party is to bear its own costs up to the point of relevant offers, after which Dreamstreet must pay the respondents’ indemnity costs. Clauses of the contract imposing restraints were held unenforceable, and ongoing payment of trail commissions was ordered to Weiss.

Parties
Applicant/cross Respondent: Dreamstreet Lending Pty Ltd; First Respondent/cross Claimant: Moishe Weiss; Second Respondent: Gremarc Pty Ltd (ACN 134 548 128); Third Respondent: Mark Darren Attard
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 July 2023
Procedural Posture
Commercial Litigation Contracts/confidential Information / Final Judgment and Orders, Including Costs
Outcome
Claims and cross-claims largely dismissed except for declarations, grant of ongoing commissions to Weiss, injunctive relief, and costs orders as set out.
Legal Topics
Costs, Confidential Information, Restraint of Trade, Offers of Compromise, Injunctive Relief
Commercial Law Contract Law Civil Procedure Costs Confidential Information Restraint of Trade Offers of Compromise Injunctive Relief

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 4 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dreamstreet Lending Pty Ltd

Applicant/cross Respondent

Moishe Weiss

First Respondent/cross Claimant

Gremarc Pty Ltd (ACN 134 548 128)

Second Respondent

Mark Darren Attard

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Commercial Litigation Contracts/confidential Information / Final Judgment and Orders, Including Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Appropriate orders as to costs given mixed success
  2. 2 Whether indemnity costs should be ordered due to refusal of offers of compromise or Calderbank offers
  3. 3 Whether contractual restraints were enforceable

Ratio Decidendi

Given mixed success, costs orders reflect the unreasonable refusal of offers of compromise/Calderbank offers by Dreamstreet, the insignificant damages obtained, and the disproportionate pursuit of litigation. Each party is to bear its own costs up to the point of relevant offers, after which Dreamstreet must pay the respondents’ indemnity costs. Clauses of the contract imposing restraints were held unenforceable, and ongoing payment of trail commissions was ordered to Weiss.

Court Disposition

Claims and cross-claims largely dismissed except for declarations, grant of ongoing commissions to Weiss, injunctive relief, and costs orders as set out.

Orders

  • There be judgment for the First Respondent against the Applicant in the amount of $8,961.45 (no GST).
  • Applicant to pay ongoing trail commissions to the First Respondent as set out in Confidential Annexure A.