Kay v Sydney Airport Corporation Limited (No 2) [2014] NSWSC 1023

Kay v Sydney Airport Corporation Limited (No 2) [2014] NSWSC 1023

Ms Kay's judgment for damages did not confer a net benefit as it was less than the workers compensation received and triggers repayment, resulting in a pyrrhic victory not entitling her to costs. Jetcare's pursuit of proceedings in the Supreme Court was warranted, and Alltrack, as the unsuccessful party, should pay UGL's costs, as the joinder was reasonable and Alltrack's submissions implicated UGL.

Parties
Plaintiff: Anna Kay; First Defendant: Sydney Airport Corporation Limited; Second Defendant: UGL Infrastructure Pty Limited; Third Defendant: Alltrack GSE Pty Ltd; Plaintiff: Toll Aviations Engineering Pty Ltd (Jetcare); First Defendant: UGL Infrastructure Pty Ltd; Second Defendant: Alltrack GSE Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 July 2014
Procedural Posture
Costs Application Following Principal Judgment / Post Judgment, Costs Determination
Outcome
Costs orders as specified: third defendant to pay second defendant's costs in 2009 proceedings; no order as to costs between plaintiff and third defendant; second defendant to pay plaintiff's and first defendant's costs in 2012 proceedings.
Legal Topics
Pyrrhic Victory, Statutory Indemnity, Workers Compensation, Costs Discretion, Joinder of Defendants
Costs Pyrrhic Victory Statutory Indemnity Workers Compensation Costs Discretion Joinder of Defendants

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 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Anna Kay

Plaintiff

Sydney Airport Corporation Limited

First Defendant

UGL Infrastructure Pty Limited

Second Defendant

Alltrack GSE Pty Ltd

Third Defendant

Toll Aviations Engineering Pty Ltd (Jetcare)

Plaintiff

UGL Infrastructure Pty Ltd

First Defendant

Alltrack GSE Pty Ltd

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Costs Application Following Principal Judgment / Post Judgment, Costs Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Entitlement to costs where plaintiff obtains judgment but no net benefit
  2. 2 Appropriate costs orders between parties following principal judgment
  3. 3 Whether third defendant should pay costs of second defendant

Ratio Decidendi

Ms Kay's judgment for damages did not confer a net benefit as it was less than the workers compensation received and triggers repayment, resulting in a pyrrhic victory not entitling her to costs. Jetcare's pursuit of proceedings in the Supreme Court was warranted, and Alltrack, as the unsuccessful party, should pay UGL's costs, as the joinder was reasonable and Alltrack's submissions implicated UGL.

Court Disposition

Costs orders as specified: third defendant to pay second defendant's costs in 2009 proceedings; no order as to costs between plaintiff and third defendant; second defendant to pay plaintiff's and first defendant's costs in 2012 proceedings.

Orders

  • In proceedings 297470 of 2009: The third defendant is to pay the second defendant's costs of the proceedings.
  • In proceedings 297470 of 2009: As between the plaintiff and the third defendant, make no order as to costs.