Graham Leonard Brand & Ors v Digi-Tech (Australia) Limited & Ors; Christopher Gerard Kelliher & Ors v Digi-Tech (Australia) Limited & Ors [2002] NSWSC 762

Graham Leonard Brand & Ors v Digi-Tech (Australia) Limited & Ors; Christopher Gerard Kelliher & Ors v Digi-Tech (Australia) Limited & Ors [2002] NSWSC 762

Standing back from the proceedings as a whole, the successful plaintiffs and the defendants had each substantially succeeded in rebutting major and pivotal causes of action pursued by the other, so no order as to costs should be made between those groups. The Kalifair, Kalinick and McLean companies were unsuccessful plaintiffs who essentially failed in the vast bulk of the causes of action they pursued, so they should pay the portion of 80 percent of the defendants' costs equivalent to their several percentage interests in the partnerships as represented at the hearing. It was not appropriate to make Toltex Human Resources Pty Ltd or Divome Properties Pty Ltd liable for those costs if...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 August 2002
Procedural Posture
Costs / Costs Submissions Following Reserved Judgment Delivered on 13 August 2002
Outcome
Short minutes of order should be brought in.
Legal Topics
['usual Order as to Costs' 'costs Discretion' 'apportionment of Costs' 'successful and Unsuccessful Parties']
['costs' 'civil Procedure'] ['usual Order as to Costs' 'costs Discretion' 'apportionment of Costs' 'successful and Unsuccessful Parties']

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 / Costs Submissions Following Reserved Judgment Delivered on 13 August 2002

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['How the Court should exercise its discretion as to costs after the reserved judgment.' 'Whether successful plaintiffs and defendants should bear their own costs where each substantially defeated major causes of action brought by the other.' "Whether the unsuccessful plaintiffs should pay part of the defendants' costs." 'Whether Toltex Human Resources Pty Ltd or Divome Properties Pty Ltd should be liable for costs if Kalifair Pty Ltd or Kalinick Pty Ltd defaulted.']

Ratio Decidendi

Standing back from the proceedings as a whole, the successful plaintiffs and the defendants had each substantially succeeded in rebutting major and pivotal causes of action pursued by the other, so no order as to costs should be made between those groups. The Kalifair, Kalinick and McLean companies were unsuccessful plaintiffs who essentially failed in the vast bulk of the causes of action they pursued, so they should pay the portion of 80 percent of the defendants' costs equivalent to their several percentage interests in the partnerships as represented at the hearing. It was not appropriate to make Toltex Human Resources Pty Ltd or Divome Properties Pty Ltd liable for those costs if...

Court Disposition

Short minutes of order should be brought in.

Orders

  • ['No order as to costs between the successful plaintiffs and the defendants, so that each such group pays its own costs.' "The unsuccessful plaintiffs are to pay that portion of 80 percent of the defendants' costs of the proceedings which is equivalent to their several percentage interest in the partnerships as...