O'Brien v Supercheap Security Pty Ltd (No 2) [2024] NSWSC 1196

O'Brien v Supercheap Security Pty Ltd (No 2) [2024] NSWSC 1196

It is appropriate to make a gross sum cost order in favour of the Plaintiffs due to the costs and time of an assessment being unwarranted, Plaintiffs having provided sufficient evidence of actual incurred costs, and the circumstances including the Defendant's non-engagement and inability to pay. The quantum is fixed at $70,000 adopting a broad, fair approach excluding costs related to the First Defendant and discounts for reasonable recovery rate.

Parties
First Plaintiff: Joanne Marjorie O'Brien; Second Plaintiff: Kerrin Uytendaal; Third Plaintiff: Mark Uytendaal; Fourth Plaintiff: Judy Jeanette Fleiter; First Defendant: Supercheap Security Pty Ltd; Second Defendant: Hassan Mehdi; Third Defendant: National Australia Bank Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 September 2024
Procedural Posture
Equity Commercial List / Consequential Orders Following Primary Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for the Plaintiffs against the Second Defendant with orders for monetary compensation, interest, and costs.
Legal Topics
Gross Sum Cost Order, Equitable Compensation, Interest on Judgment Debts
Equity Costs Gross Sum Cost Order Equitable Compensation Interest on Judgment Debts

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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Joanne Marjorie O'Brien

First Plaintiff

Kerrin Uytendaal

Second Plaintiff

Mark Uytendaal

Third Plaintiff

Judy Jeanette Fleiter

Fourth Plaintiff

Supercheap Security Pty Ltd

First Defendant

Hassan Mehdi

Second Defendant

National Australia Bank Limited

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Equity Commercial List / Consequential Orders Following Primary Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether it is appropriate to make a gross sum cost order under s 98(4) Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW)
  2. 2 Entitlement to equitable compensation against Second Defendant
  3. 3 Entitlement to interest and costs

Ratio Decidendi

It is appropriate to make a gross sum cost order in favour of the Plaintiffs due to the costs and time of an assessment being unwarranted, Plaintiffs having provided sufficient evidence of actual incurred costs, and the circumstances including the Defendant's non-engagement and inability to pay. The quantum is fixed at $70,000 adopting a broad, fair approach excluding costs related to the First Defendant and discounts for reasonable recovery rate.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the Plaintiffs against the Second Defendant with orders for monetary compensation, interest, and costs.

Orders

  • Judgment for the First Plaintiff against the Second Defendant in the sum of $500,000.
  • Judgment for the Second Plaintiff against the Second Defendant in the sum of $100,000.