G&S Engineering Services Pty Ltd v MACH Energy Australia Pty Ltd (No 15) [2024] NSWSC 762

G&S Engineering Services Pty Ltd v MACH Energy Australia Pty Ltd (No 15) [2024] NSWSC 762

Applying a broad-brush assessment, Calibre was entitled to reasonable costs of compliance but not to costs referable to CDJV's motion to set aside the subpoena because MACH was not responsible for those costs and Calibre's appearance on that application was not reasonably necessary. The privilege costs were allowed only in part because some claims were abandoned, although MACH's resistance to the remaining claims made a hearing necessary. The Court accepted the 12.5% discount proposed by Calibre's costs consultant rather than MACH's higher proposed discount, and allowed a gross sum of $50,000 for the costs of this application.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 June 2024
Procedural Posture
Equity Technology and Construction List; Procedural Ruling on Costs of Compliance With Subpoenas / Notice of Motion Filed on 1 May 2024 Heard on 18 June 2024
Outcome
Application allowed in part; $85,000 allowed for the applicant's costs of compliance incurred in relation to subpoenas.
Legal Topics
['subpoenas' 'costs of Compliance' 'reasonably Incurred Costs' 'gross Sum Costs Orders' 'legal Professional Privilege']
['civil Procedure'] ['subpoenas' 'costs of Compliance' 'reasonably Incurred Costs' 'gross Sum Costs Orders' 'legal Professional Privilege']

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

Equity Technology and Construction List; Procedural Ruling on Costs of Compliance With Subpoenas / Notice of Motion Filed on 1 May 2024 Heard on 18 June 2024

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether Calibre's claimed costs of compliance with subpoenas were reasonably incurred under Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) r 33.11." "Whether costs incurred by Calibre in relation to CDJV's motion to set aside the subpoena should be included as costs of compliance." "What amount should be allowed for costs incurred in relation to Calibre's claims for privilege." 'What discount should be applied for inefficiencies or irrecoverable work.' 'What gross sum should be allowed for the costs of this application.']

Ratio Decidendi

Applying a broad-brush assessment, Calibre was entitled to reasonable costs of compliance but not to costs referable to CDJV's motion to set aside the subpoena because MACH was not responsible for those costs and Calibre's appearance on that application was not reasonably necessary. The privilege costs were allowed only in part because some claims were abandoned, although MACH's resistance to the remaining claims made a hearing necessary. The Court accepted the 12.5% discount proposed by Calibre's costs consultant rather than MACH's higher proposed discount, and allowed a gross sum of $50,000 for the costs of this application.

Court Disposition

Application allowed in part; $85,000 allowed for the applicant's costs of compliance incurred in relation to subpoenas.

Orders

  • ["Allow $85,000 for the applicant's costs of compliance incurred in relation to subpoenas." 'Allow $35,000 for the privilege debate.' 'Allow $50,000 for the costs of this application.' 'The parties were invited to confer, do the arithmetic, and agree on the orders needed to give effect to the reasons.']