Actol Pty Ltd v Pro9 Systems Pty Ltd [2022] NSWCATAP 255

Actol Pty Ltd v Pro9 Systems Pty Ltd [2022] NSWCATAP 255

The Tribunal did not err in awarding costs to the second respondent where it found, on the evidence, no relevant involvement by Mr Jukic as required for accessorial liability under the Australian Consumer Law. As the claim against Mr Jukic failed, costs properly followed the event; no conduct of the first respondent necessitated a Sanderson order and no errors in discretion or inadequacy of reasons were established. Leave to appeal was refused and the appeal dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 August 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Decision on Application for Leave to Appeal and Appeal
Outcome
Leave to appeal is refused and the appeal is dismissed.
Legal Topics
['costs Orders' 'sanderson Order' 'accessorial Liability' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'australian Consumer Law S 18 and S 236']
['civil Procedure' 'costs' 'consumer Law'] ['costs Orders' 'sanderson Order' 'accessorial Liability' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'australian Consumer Law S 18 and S 236']

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

Civil Appeal / Decision on Application for Leave to Appeal and Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Tribunal erred in ordering the appellant to pay the costs of the second respondent (Mr Jukic)' 'Whether the Tribunal provided adequate reasons regarding accessorial liability and costs' "Whether a Sanderson order should have been made requiring the first respondent to pay the second respondent's costs" 'Whether failure to determine all claims under ACL affected costs discretion']

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal did not err in awarding costs to the second respondent where it found, on the evidence, no relevant involvement by Mr Jukic as required for accessorial liability under the Australian Consumer Law. As the claim against Mr Jukic failed, costs properly followed the event; no conduct of the first respondent necessitated a Sanderson order and no errors in discretion or inadequacy of reasons were established. Leave to appeal was refused and the appeal dismissed.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal is refused and the appeal is dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal is refused and the appeal is dismissed.' 'Any application for costs and evidence and submissions in support is to be filed and served within 14 days from the date of this decision.' 'Any evidence and submissions in response to the costs application are to be filed and served within 28 days from the...