Redwood Anti-Ageing Pty Limited & Anor v Knowles & Ors (No. 2) [2013] NSWSC 742

Redwood Anti-Ageing Pty Limited & Anor v Knowles & Ors (No. 2) [2013] NSWSC 742

The second defendant's cross-claim was dismissed because it was effectively abandoned, and the undertaking securing that claim was discharged. On costs, the plaintiffs' failure on most claims meant the second and third defendants were prima facie entitled to costs, but the defendants' failure to admit the true nature of their arrangements with Redwood and the untruthful evidence of Mr Knowles and Mr Boyd significantly increased costs, requiring a reduction. The plaintiffs were therefore to pay two-thirds of the second and third defendants' costs. As to the first defendant, a further reduction was warranted because Redwood succeeded on the $42,500 loan issue, which occupied significant...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 June 2013
Procedural Posture
Equity Division Costs Determination and Dismissal of Cross Claim / After Orders Made on 10 May 2013; Hearing on Costs and Outstanding Cross Claim
Outcome
Second defendant's cross-claim dismissed; undertaking discharged; controlled moneys released to the first plaintiff; costs orders made against the plaintiffs in reduced proportions.
Legal Topics
['costs Following the Event' 'severable Issues' 'separate Determination of Issues' 'illegality Under Pharmacy Act 1964 (nsw)' 'uniform Civil Procedure Rules R 42.34' 'discharge of Undertaking' 'dismissal of Abandoned Cross Claim']
['civil Procedure' 'costs' 'equity'] ['costs Following the Event' 'severable Issues' 'separate Determination of Issues' 'illegality Under Pharmacy Act 1964 (nsw)' 'uniform Civil Procedure Rules R 42.34' 'discharge of Undertaking' 'dismissal of Abandoned Cross Claim']

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

Equity Division Costs Determination and Dismissal of Cross Claim / After Orders Made on 10 May 2013; Hearing on Costs and Outstanding Cross Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the second defendant's abandoned cross-claim should be dismissed and the related undertaking discharged." 'What costs orders should be made where the plaintiffs failed against the second and third defendants and substantially failed against the first defendant, but succeeded on a loan claim against the first defendant.' "Whether the defendants' opposition to a separate determination of the illegality issue should affect costs." "Whether the defendants' untruthful evidence and failure to admit the true nature of the relationship justified reducing their recoverable costs." 'Whether r 42.34 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules affected costs where the plaintiffs succeeded on a claim below $500,000 but the proceedings included equitable relief.']

Ratio Decidendi

The second defendant's cross-claim was dismissed because it was effectively abandoned, and the undertaking securing that claim was discharged. On costs, the plaintiffs' failure on most claims meant the second and third defendants were prima facie entitled to costs, but the defendants' failure to admit the true nature of their arrangements with Redwood and the untruthful evidence of Mr Knowles and Mr Boyd significantly increased costs, requiring a reduction. The plaintiffs were therefore to pay two-thirds of the second and third defendants' costs. As to the first defendant, a further reduction was warranted because Redwood succeeded on the $42,500 loan issue, which occupied significant...

Court Disposition

Second defendant's cross-claim dismissed; undertaking discharged; controlled moneys released to the first plaintiff; costs orders made against the plaintiffs in reduced proportions.

Orders

  • ["Order that the 2nd defendant's cross-claim be dismissed." 'Order that the undertaking which is paragraph 1 to the short minutes of order noted by McDougall J on 17 July 2007 be discharged.' 'Direct that the moneys paid into a Morgan Lewis controlled moneys account may be released to the first plaintiff.' 'Order...