Belmore 88 Pty Ltd v Douglas (No 2) [2023] NSWSC 1228

Belmore 88 Pty Ltd v Douglas (No 2) [2023] NSWSC 1228

The plaintiff failed in the proceedings and, under the usual rule that costs follow the event, was not entitled to recover its costs. Although Mr Douglas had represented to the Court that exchange had occurred when the Court later found it had not, the plaintiff assumed the burden of proving that the alleged contract should be invalidated because of inconsistency with earlier orders and failed to do so. The finding that no valid exchange occurred had no real practical commercial significance because Mr Douglas and Mr Wood could still contract between themselves subject to any restraints arising from the principal proceedings. The plaintiff's costs application therefore failed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 October 2023
Procedural Posture
Costs Application / Application by Plaintiff for Costs After Dismissal of Its Claim for Relief
Outcome
Plaintiff's application for costs refused.
Legal Topics
['party/party Costs' 'costs Follow the Event' 'utility of Declaratory Relief' 'alleged Exchange of Contracts' 'interlocutory Orders']
['civil Procedure' 'costs' 'equity'] ['party/party Costs' 'costs Follow the Event' 'utility of Declaratory Relief' 'alleged Exchange of Contracts' 'interlocutory Orders']

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 / Application by Plaintiff for Costs After Dismissal of Its Claim for Relief

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the defendants should pay the plaintiff's costs of the proceedings despite the plaintiff's claim having been dismissed." "Whether the plaintiff's broader objective of invalidating the alleged contract justified a costs order in its favour." 'Whether the outcome of the proceedings had practical utility given the pending principal proceedings and existing interlocutory restraints.']

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff failed in the proceedings and, under the usual rule that costs follow the event, was not entitled to recover its costs. Although Mr Douglas had represented to the Court that exchange had occurred when the Court later found it had not, the plaintiff assumed the burden of proving that the alleged contract should be invalidated because of inconsistency with earlier orders and failed to do so. The finding that no valid exchange occurred had no real practical commercial significance because Mr Douglas and Mr Wood could still contract between themselves subject to any restraints arising from the principal proceedings. The plaintiff's costs application therefore failed.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's application for costs refused.

Orders

  • ['There be no order as to the costs of the proceedings, including the costs of the present costs application.']