Russo & Ors v Russo & Ors (No. 2) [2015] NSWSC 449

Russo & Ors v Russo & Ors (No. 2) [2015] NSWSC 449

Costs orders are to be made in favour of plaintiffs and the fourth defendant against the Russo defendants, with a Sanderson order, because the plaintiffs vindicated their principal rights and the unsuccessful defendants' conduct compelled the joinder of Barbara Murphy, the fourth defendant. The joint venture agreement existed between the named parties and the defendants must account to the plaintiffs. The court will not hear the taking of accounts further due to apprehended bias, with referral to another judge or referee appropriate.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 April 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil / Post Principal Judgment; Supplemental Orders and Directions
Outcome
Declarations made regarding existence and scope of joint venture; orders for accounting; cost orders in favour of first and second plaintiffs and fourth defendant; Sanderson order; costs thrown away by vacation of hearing date to be paid by plaintiffs; no costs order against Anros; accounts of joint venture to be...
Legal Topics
['costs Orders' 'joint Venture Accounting' 'declaratory Relief' 'apprehended Bias' 'sanderson Order' 'bullock Order']
['civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['costs Orders' 'joint Venture Accounting' 'declaratory Relief' 'apprehended Bias' 'sanderson Order' 'bullock Order']

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 / Post Principal Judgment; Supplemental Orders and Directions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether costs should be reserved or ordered' 'Whether plaintiffs should pay costs thrown away by vacation of hearing date' "Whether Bullock or Sanderson order should be made against unsuccessful defendants for successful defendant's costs" 'Relief and costs against second defendant' 'Costs against unsuccessful third plaintiff' 'Entitlement to declaratory relief' 'Apprehended bias due to pre-judgment findings']

Ratio Decidendi

Costs orders are to be made in favour of plaintiffs and the fourth defendant against the Russo defendants, with a Sanderson order, because the plaintiffs vindicated their principal rights and the unsuccessful defendants' conduct compelled the joinder of Barbara Murphy, the fourth defendant. The joint venture agreement existed between the named parties and the defendants must account to the plaintiffs. The court will not hear the taking of accounts further due to apprehended bias, with referral to another judge or referee appropriate.

Court Disposition

Declarations made regarding existence and scope of joint venture; orders for accounting; cost orders in favour of first and second plaintiffs and fourth defendant; Sanderson order; costs thrown away by vacation of hearing date to be paid by plaintiffs; no costs order against Anros; accounts of joint venture to be...

Orders

  • ['The first and second plaintiffs and first, second and third defendants entered into a joint venture dissolved not before 2006.' 'Joint venture to develop and sell land at Parramatta, Killarney St, and Esther Road projects.' 'Upon dissolution, each partner entitled to repayment of capital contributions and share of...