Thomas v SMP (International) No 5 [2010] NSWSC 1263

Thomas v SMP (International) No 5 [2010] NSWSC 1263

It was reasonable for the plaintiffs to bring the claim against Mrs Willett and Mr Willett's conduct made it fair that he bear her costs, with no proven basis that a Sanderson order would cause unfairness through insolvency. The claims against Mr King were insufficiently connected to the claims against Mr Willett, so Mr Willett should not pay Mr King's costs; however, Mr King obtained a better result than his Calderbank offers and was entitled to indemnity costs from 20 April 2007, limited because much of counsel's attendance was unnecessary. The evidence supported inclusion of the NAB overdraft payment and $547,000 for the Marlo Road properties in Mr Thomas' judgment, but Mr Sullivan's...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 October 2010
Procedural Posture
Procedural and Other Ruling in Equity Division Proceeding / Post Judgment Hearing on Costs, Interest, Outstanding Amounts, Stay and Security for Costs
Outcome
Orders made; proceedings stood over to 4 November 2010 for remaining issues including compound interest, claims against non-appearing defendants and the SSDI shares issue.
Legal Topics
['sanderson Order' 'indemnity Costs' 'calderbank Offers' 'compound Interest' 'equitable Compensation' 'security for Costs' 'stay of Judgment']
['costs' 'equity' 'civil Procedure'] ['sanderson Order' 'indemnity Costs' 'calderbank Offers' 'compound Interest' 'equitable Compensation' 'security for Costs' 'stay of Judgment']

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

Procedural and Other Ruling in Equity Division Proceeding / Post Judgment Hearing on Costs, Interest, Outstanding Amounts, Stay and Security for Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the fourth defendant should pay the costs of the successful fifth defendant by a Sanderson order' 'Whether the fourth defendant should pay the costs of the successful third defendant' 'Whether the third defendant was entitled to indemnity costs after Calderbank offers and whether those costs should be limited' 'Whether compound interest should be awarded and on what basis' 'Whether further amounts claimed by the plaintiffs should be included in the judgment or referred for inquiry' "Whether costs thrown away by rejection of Mr Sullivan's affidavit should be specially ordered" 'Whether a stay of the money judgment was appropriate' 'Whether security for costs provided by the plaintiffs should be released']

Ratio Decidendi

It was reasonable for the plaintiffs to bring the claim against Mrs Willett and Mr Willett's conduct made it fair that he bear her costs, with no proven basis that a Sanderson order would cause unfairness through insolvency. The claims against Mr King were insufficiently connected to the claims against Mr Willett, so Mr Willett should not pay Mr King's costs; however, Mr King obtained a better result than his Calderbank offers and was entitled to indemnity costs from 20 April 2007, limited because much of counsel's attendance was unnecessary. The evidence supported inclusion of the NAB overdraft payment and $547,000 for the Marlo Road properties in Mr Thomas' judgment, but Mr Sullivan's...

Court Disposition

Orders made; proceedings stood over to 4 November 2010 for remaining issues including compound interest, claims against non-appearing defendants and the SSDI shares issue.

Orders

  • ['The fourth defendant is to pay to Mr Thomas $3,326,588.' 'The fourth defendant is to pay to Mr Sullivan $214,373.' 'Orders in relation to quantification of compound interest on $3,326,588 and $214,373 will be made on 4 November 2010.' 'There is to be referred to an Associate Justice an enquiry as to the damages...