Optus Administration Pty Limited v Glenn Wright by his tutor James Stuart Wright (No 2) [2017] NSWCA 154

Optus Administration Pty Limited v Glenn Wright by his tutor James Stuart Wright (No 2) [2017] NSWCA 154

Optus was entitled to interest on the money paid to IPA because the declaration requiring indemnity had been set aside, IPA conceded the right to restitution of the principal, IPA had the benefit of the money while Optus was out of pocket, and none of IPA's asserted circumstances made it appropriate to deny interest. A stay was refused because the principal had already been repaid and there was no demonstrated reason to distinguish interest from principal or doubt Optus's capacity to meet any later liability. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs because Optus required an indulgence after failing to seek complete relief in the appeal, but IPA had no proper basis to oppose...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 June 2017
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion for Restitution, Interest and Costs Following Successful Appeal / On the Papers; Post Appeal Motion
Outcome
Judgment for Optus against IPA for interest, with each party to pay its own costs of the motion.
Legal Topics
['recovery of Money Paid Under a Judgment or Order Later Set Aside' 'interest on Restitution' 'failure to Claim Restitution in Notice of Appeal' 'stay Pending Application for Special Leave to Appeal' 'costs of Motion for Restitution']
['restitution' 'civil Procedure' 'costs' 'workers Compensation'] ['recovery of Money Paid Under a Judgment or Order Later Set Aside' 'interest on Restitution' 'failure to Claim Restitution in Notice of Appeal' 'stay Pending Application for Special Leave to Appeal' 'costs of Motion for Restitution']

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

Notice of Motion for Restitution, Interest and Costs Following Successful Appeal / On the Papers; Post Appeal Motion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Optus was entitled to interest on moneys paid to IPA under a declaration later set aside on appeal.' "Whether any order for interest should be stayed pending Mr Wright's application for special leave to appeal to the High Court." "What costs order should be made on Optus's motion of 9 March 2017."]

Ratio Decidendi

Optus was entitled to interest on the money paid to IPA because the declaration requiring indemnity had been set aside, IPA conceded the right to restitution of the principal, IPA had the benefit of the money while Optus was out of pocket, and none of IPA's asserted circumstances made it appropriate to deny interest. A stay was refused because the principal had already been repaid and there was no demonstrated reason to distinguish interest from principal or doubt Optus's capacity to meet any later liability. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs because Optus required an indulgence after failing to seek complete relief in the appeal, but IPA had no proper basis to oppose...

Court Disposition

Judgment for Optus against IPA for interest, with each party to pay its own costs of the motion.

Orders

  • ['Judgment for the appellant against the second respondent for $94,431.03 with effect from 24 May 2017.' 'Each party to pay its own costs of the motion of 9 March 2017.']