DXC Connect Pty Ltd v Deibe & Ors [2017] NSWSC 1356

DXC Connect Pty Ltd v Deibe & Ors [2017] NSWSC 1356

DXC was the successful party on the interlocutory application because it obtained confidentiality relief and restraint of trade relief in a wider form than Mr McCabe had been prepared to accept, but a significant discount was required because a substantial part of the hearing and ancillary work concerned DXC's unsuccessful springboard claim and six month restraint. The appropriate order was that 60% of DXC's costs of and incidental to the interlocutory application be its costs in the cause, excluding affidavit preparation costs to the extent relied on at the final hearing. Mr McCabe's Calderbank offer did not alter that result because it was not unreasonable for DXC not to accept it,...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 October 2017
Procedural Posture
Costs in Interlocutory Proceedings Concerning Interlocutory Injunction Relief / Determination of Costs After Interlocutory Injunction Judgment
Outcome
Costs ordered partly in DXC's favour as costs in the cause; no order as to costs of the costs application.
Legal Topics
['party/party Costs' 'interlocutory Injunction Costs' 'costs in the Cause' 'exceptions to Costs Following the Event' 'calderbank Offers' 'offers of Compromise' 'confidential Information' 'contractual Restraint of Trade' 'springboard Injunction']
['costs' 'equity' 'civil Procedure'] ['party/party Costs' 'interlocutory Injunction Costs' 'costs in the Cause' 'exceptions to Costs Following the Event' 'calderbank Offers' 'offers of Compromise' 'confidential Information' 'contractual Restraint of Trade' 'springboard Injunction']

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 in Interlocutory Proceedings Concerning Interlocutory Injunction Relief / Determination of Costs After Interlocutory Injunction Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether DXC's costs of the interlocutory application should be its costs in the cause or paid by Mr McCabe, and in what proportion." "Whether DXC's partial failure on its springboard claim and six month restraint should reduce any costs order in its favour." "Whether it was unreasonable for DXC not to accept Mr McCabe's Calderbank offer dated 10 August 2017 so as to affect costs."]

Ratio Decidendi

DXC was the successful party on the interlocutory application because it obtained confidentiality relief and restraint of trade relief in a wider form than Mr McCabe had been prepared to accept, but a significant discount was required because a substantial part of the hearing and ancillary work concerned DXC's unsuccessful springboard claim and six month restraint. The appropriate order was that 60% of DXC's costs of and incidental to the interlocutory application be its costs in the cause, excluding affidavit preparation costs to the extent relied on at the final hearing. Mr McCabe's Calderbank offer did not alter that result because it was not unreasonable for DXC not to accept it,...

Court Disposition

Costs ordered partly in DXC's favour as costs in the cause; no order as to costs of the costs application.

Orders

  • ["Sixty per cent of the Plaintiff's costs of and incidental to the application heard on 22–23 and 25 August 2017, excluding costs referable to the preparation of affidavits to the extent they are relied on in the final hearing, as agreed or as assessed, be the Plaintiff's costs in the cause." 'There be no order as...