BB Australia v Danset (No 3) [2018] NSWSC 1823

BB Australia v Danset (No 3) [2018] NSWSC 1823

The Tresblue parties defeated BBA's claims against them because BBA failed to prove essential elements, including loss for inducing breach of contract and a relevant trust or fiduciary duty for accessorial liability. The alleged misconduct was the same conduct relied on to found the failed causes of action and did not have the necessary costs-related connection to justify departing from UCPR r 42.1. Accordingly, the successful fourth and fifth defendants were entitled to their costs.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 November 2018
Procedural Posture
Costs Application to Vary Costs Order / Notice of Motion Filed 9 October 2017 Determined on the Papers
Outcome
Plaintiff's notice of motion filed 9 October 2017 dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['application to Vary Costs Order' 'inducing Breach of Contract' 'accessorial Liability' 'breach of Trust or Fiduciary Duty' 'misconduct and Costs' 'ucpr R 42.1']
['civil Procedure' 'costs' 'contract' 'equity'] ['application to Vary Costs Order' 'inducing Breach of Contract' 'accessorial Liability' 'breach of Trust or Fiduciary Duty' 'misconduct and Costs' 'ucpr R 42.1']

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

Costs Application to Vary Costs Order / Notice of Motion Filed 9 October 2017 Determined on the Papers

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether alleged misconduct by the fourth and fifth defendants should disentitle them to a costs order.' 'Whether the costs order dismissing the proceedings against the fourth and fifth defendants with costs should be varied so that there be no order as to costs.' "Whether the plaintiff's failure to prove loss and to establish a trust or fiduciary duty meant the fourth and fifth defendants were successful for costs purposes."]

Ratio Decidendi

The Tresblue parties defeated BBA's claims against them because BBA failed to prove essential elements, including loss for inducing breach of contract and a relevant trust or fiduciary duty for accessorial liability. The alleged misconduct was the same conduct relied on to found the failed causes of action and did not have the necessary costs-related connection to justify departing from UCPR r 42.1. Accordingly, the successful fourth and fifth defendants were entitled to their costs.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's notice of motion filed 9 October 2017 dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ["As between the plaintiff and the fourth and fifth defendants, the plaintiff's notice of motion filed on 9 October 2017 be dismissed with costs."]