Flynn v PPK Mining Equipment Pty Ltd [2025] NSWCA 10

Flynn v PPK Mining Equipment Pty Ltd [2025] NSWCA 10

Leave to appeal was refused because the primary judge correctly applied established principles in relation to costs apportionment, there was no error in law or principle, no issue of public importance, and no injustice beyond that which is merely arguable. Discretion as to costs and issue apportionment was properly exercised given the applicants' mixed success and substantial time spent on unsuccessful issues.

Parties
First Applicant: Daniel Flynn; Second Applicant: Flynfam Pty Ltd as trustee for Flynn Family Trust; First Respondent: PPK Mining Equipment Pty Ltd; Second Respondent: PPK Group Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 February 2025
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal (costs) / Application for Leave to Appeal From Costs Order
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused; applicants to pay respondents' costs of application for leave.
Legal Topics
Costs, Leave to Appeal, Apportionment of Costs, Mixed Success
Civil Procedure Costs Leave to Appeal Apportionment of Costs Mixed Success

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 5 Authorities cited 22 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Daniel Flynn

First Applicant

Flynfam Pty Ltd as trustee for Flynn Family Trust

Second Applicant

PPK Mining Equipment Pty Ltd

First Respondent

PPK Group Ltd

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal (costs) / Application for Leave to Appeal From Costs Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to appeal from the costs order of the primary judge should be granted
  2. 2 Whether the primary judge erred in apportioning costs based on issues and success at trial
  3. 3 Whether the primary judge misunderstood issue identification and apportionment of costs

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because the primary judge correctly applied established principles in relation to costs apportionment, there was no error in law or principle, no issue of public importance, and no injustice beyond that which is merely arguable. Discretion as to costs and issue apportionment was properly exercised given the applicants' mixed success and substantial time spent on unsuccessful issues.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused; applicants to pay respondents' costs of application for leave.

Orders

  • Leave to appeal refused.
  • Applicants to pay the respondents' costs of the application for leave to appeal.