Credex Australia Pty Ltd v Tradebanc International Pty Ltd & Ors [1997] FCA 426

Credex Australia Pty Ltd v Tradebanc International Pty Ltd & Ors [1997] FCA 426

The third respondent's communications were a relevant cause of the applicant incurring reasonable mitigation expenses and travel costs totalling $7669.20. Although the first and second respondents had settled, the settlement sum was treated as covering costs up to 6 November 1996, and the assessed damages against the third respondent were fixed at $7669.20 including the costs payable under the 24 October 1996 order, avoiding double recovery while leaving the third respondent in no worse position.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 May 1997
Procedural Posture
Application for Assessment of Damages Against the Third Respondent / Assessment of Damages After Default Judgment
Outcome
Damages assessed for the applicant against the third respondent in the amount of $7669.20, with a further costs order for costs incurred after 24 October 1996.
Legal Topics
['default Judgment' 'assessment of Damages' 'costs' 'settlement and Avoidance of Double Recovery' 'false Publications Reflecting on Solvency and Business Status']
['civil Procedure' 'damages'] ['default Judgment' 'assessment of Damages' 'costs' 'settlement and Avoidance of Double Recovery' 'false Publications Reflecting on Solvency and Business Status']

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

Application for Assessment of Damages Against the Third Respondent / Assessment of Damages After Default Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['What damages should be assessed against the third respondent following judgment in default of defence.' 'Whether the default judgment established all pleaded adverse publications against the third respondent, including the allegation in par9(g) of the statement of claim.' 'Whether the settlement sum paid by the first and second respondents should be taken into account to avoid double recovery.' 'What costs order should be made after the default judgment.']

Ratio Decidendi

The third respondent's communications were a relevant cause of the applicant incurring reasonable mitigation expenses and travel costs totalling $7669.20. Although the first and second respondents had settled, the settlement sum was treated as covering costs up to 6 November 1996, and the assessed damages against the third respondent were fixed at $7669.20 including the costs payable under the 24 October 1996 order, avoiding double recovery while leaving the third respondent in no worse position.

Court Disposition

Damages assessed for the applicant against the third respondent in the amount of $7669.20, with a further costs order for costs incurred after 24 October 1996.

Orders

  • ["The applicant's damages against the third respondent are assessed at $7669.20." 'That amount includes the costs payable by the third respondent to the applicant pursuant to the order of the Court on 24 October 1996.' 'The third respondent is ordered to pay to the applicant the costs incurred by the applicant in...