SAB Closed 1 Pty Ltd v Bees & Honey Pty Ltd; Bees & Honey Pty Ltd v SAB Closed 1 Pty Ltd [2015] NSWSC 1162

SAB Closed 1 Pty Ltd v Bees & Honey Pty Ltd; Bees & Honey Pty Ltd v SAB Closed 1 Pty Ltd [2015] NSWSC 1162

Although neither party achieved all the relief it sought, the defendant was successful overall because it established that the Completion Date had not been extended, the condition precedent in cl 6.1(a) of the Agreement had not been satisfied by the Completion Date in relation to the Met Centre, and it was entitled to terminate the Agreement. The appropriate costs order was for the plaintiff to pay 80 per cent of the defendant's costs, but reduced by $7,293.61 because the defendant unreasonably required Mr Shields to travel from France for cross-examination and then did not cross-examine him. A gross sum costs order was refused because the defendant's evidence did not provide sufficient...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 August 2015
Procedural Posture
Costs in Equity Division Commercial List Proceedings / Final Costs Orders After Judgment Delivered on 28 July 2015
Outcome
The summons and cross-summons were dismissed; the plaintiff was ordered to pay 80 per cent of the defendant's costs less $7,293.61.
Legal Topics
['costs Assessment' 'partial Success on Issues' 'gross Sum Costs Order' 'witness Travel Costs' 'cross Examination']
['costs' 'civil Procedure' 'commercial Law'] ['costs Assessment' 'partial Success on Issues' 'gross Sum Costs Order' 'witness Travel Costs' 'cross Examination']

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Costs in Equity Division Commercial List Proceedings / Final Costs Orders After Judgment Delivered on 28 July 2015

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether costs should reflect that the defendant was successful overall but unsuccessful on some issues.' 'Whether a gross sum costs order should be made under s 98(4)(c) of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW).' 'Whether the defendant should pay costs incurred for Mr Philip Shields to travel from France to Australia when he was ultimately not required for cross-examination.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although neither party achieved all the relief it sought, the defendant was successful overall because it established that the Completion Date had not been extended, the condition precedent in cl 6.1(a) of the Agreement had not been satisfied by the Completion Date in relation to the Met Centre, and it was entitled to terminate the Agreement. The appropriate costs order was for the plaintiff to pay 80 per cent of the defendant's costs, but reduced by $7,293.61 because the defendant unreasonably required Mr Shields to travel from France for cross-examination and then did not cross-examine him. A gross sum costs order was refused because the defendant's evidence did not provide sufficient...

Court Disposition

The summons and cross-summons were dismissed; the plaintiff was ordered to pay 80 per cent of the defendant's costs less $7,293.61.

Orders

  • ['The summons and cross-summons are dismissed.' "The plaintiff pay 80 per cent of the defendant's costs less $7,293.61."]