Driver v Botanical Water Technologies Pty Ltd (No 2) [2024] NSWSC 1641

Driver v Botanical Water Technologies Pty Ltd (No 2) [2024] NSWSC 1641

Interest on equitable compensation should run from the date reasons for judgment were delivered as that is the point at which loss is assessed, not from the date of breach or asset transfer; costs should be awarded at 90 percent to the plaintiffs, recognising the interconnectedness of claims and the partial lack of success.

Parties
First Plaintiff: David Driver; Second Plaintiff: Ambrosios Kambouris; Third Plaintiff: Kambouris Shares Pty Ltd; Fourth Plaintiff: DJD Trading Pty Ltd; First Defendant: Botanical Water Technologies Pty Ltd; Second Defendant: Botanical Water Technologies Ltd; Third Defendant: Botanical Water Technologies IP Ltd; Fourth Defendant: MyCo Pty Ltd; Fifth Defendant: Terry Paule; Sixth Defendant: Aqua Botanical Beverages (Australia) Pty Ltd (In Liquidation)
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 December 2024
Procedural Posture
Equity Commercial List / Costs and Interest Determination Following Principal Judgment
Outcome
Orders made for payment of compensation, interest, and costs against the fifth defendant; otherwise, no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
Costs, Interest, Fiduciary Duties, Equitable Compensation
Equity Commercial Law Costs Interest Fiduciary Duties Equitable Compensation

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Driver

First Plaintiff

Ambrosios Kambouris

Second Plaintiff

Kambouris Shares Pty Ltd

Third Plaintiff

DJD Trading Pty Ltd

Fourth Plaintiff

Botanical Water Technologies Pty Ltd

First Defendant

Botanical Water Technologies Ltd

Second Defendant

Botanical Water Technologies IP Ltd

Third Defendant

MyCo Pty Ltd

Fourth Defendant

Terry Paule

Fifth Defendant

Aqua Botanical Beverages (Australia) Pty Ltd (In Liquidation)

Sixth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Equity Commercial List / Costs and Interest Determination Following Principal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 From what date should interest on equitable compensation run?
  2. 2 How should costs be apportioned among parties given partial success and failure of claims?

Ratio Decidendi

Interest on equitable compensation should run from the date reasons for judgment were delivered as that is the point at which loss is assessed, not from the date of breach or asset transfer; costs should be awarded at 90 percent to the plaintiffs, recognising the interconnectedness of claims and the partial lack of success.

Court Disposition

Orders made for payment of compensation, interest, and costs against the fifth defendant; otherwise, no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The fifth defendant pay the second plaintiff the sum of USD8,516,012.34;
  • The fifth defendant pay the fourth plaintiff the sum of USD7,467,406.41;