Lambourne v Baker (No 5) [2024] NSWCA 241

Lambourne v Baker (No 5) [2024] NSWCA 241

The applications for review were dismissed because payment into Court by Mr Baker on his instructions of the fixed sum of $210,249 satisfied the condition for the stay imposed on payment of the judgment to Punters Show Pty Ltd, and the entitlement to the costs by the respondents was established by the court orders and assessments, with set-off provision applying; registration of costs certificates was not required for payment out. There was no error of principle or inadequacy of reasoning in the payment out order. The quantum and entitlement issues relied on by the applicants were not made out. Costs followed the event.

Parties
First Applicant: Marc Alan Lambourne; Second Applicant: Glenn Craig Pollett; Third Applicant: Punters Show Pty Ltd; First Respondent: Dallas Matthew Baker; Second Respondent: Todd Cameron Buckingham; Third Respondent: BetMakers Technology Group Limited; Fourth Respondent: 12 Follow Pty Limited; Fifth Respondent: Operis Momentus Pty Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 October 2024
Procedural Posture
Application for Review of Payment Out/costs Orders (civil Procedure) / Court of Appeal Determination of Review, Post Orders Payment Out
Outcome
Applicants' notice of motion dismissed with costs; respondents' notice of motion dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Costs, Stay of Judgment, Set Off, Payment Out of Court, Enforcement of Costs, Judgment Debts, Interest
Civil Procedure Costs Stay of Judgment Set Off Payment Out of Court Enforcement of Costs Judgment Debts Interest

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 6 Authorities cited 28 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Marc Alan Lambourne

First Applicant

Glenn Craig Pollett

Second Applicant

Punters Show Pty Ltd

Third Applicant

Dallas Matthew Baker

First Respondent

Todd Cameron Buckingham

Second Respondent

BetMakers Technology Group Limited

Third Respondent

12 Follow Pty Limited

Fourth Respondent

Operis Momentus Pty Limited

Fifth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Review of Payment Out/costs Orders (civil Procedure) / Court of Appeal Determination of Review, Post Orders Payment Out

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the stay of payment of a judgment sum was operative and if payment into Court complied with conditions for the stay
  2. 2 Whether post-judgment interest was required to be paid as part of payment into Court
  3. 3 Whether registration of costs certificates was required before the respondents were 'entitled' to payment out

Ratio Decidendi

The applications for review were dismissed because payment into Court by Mr Baker on his instructions of the fixed sum of $210,249 satisfied the condition for the stay imposed on payment of the judgment to Punters Show Pty Ltd, and the entitlement to the costs by the respondents was established by the court orders and assessments, with set-off provision applying; registration of costs certificates was not required for payment out. There was no error of principle or inadequacy of reasoning in the payment out order. The quantum and entitlement issues relied on by the applicants were not made out. Costs followed the event.

Court Disposition

Applicants' notice of motion dismissed with costs; respondents' notice of motion dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Applicants' notice of motion dated 6 June 2024 dismissed with costs.
  • Respondents' notice of motion dated 3 September 2024 dismissed with costs.