Domanko v Business Catalyst International Pty Ltd (No 3) [2010] NSWIRComm 54

Domanko v Business Catalyst International Pty Ltd (No 3) [2010] NSWIRComm 54

Applicant succeeded overall, though only in one out of several claims; the general rule that costs follow the event applies where the proceedings are not characterised as involving multiple discrete issues; the applicant's success justified an order for costs in his favour despite not succeeding on all claims. Offers of compromise by applicant were not effective or more favourable than outcome, so no order for indemnity costs; proportional reduction not warranted given proceedings were directed to a single contract and overall success.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 May 2010
Procedural Posture
Application Under S 106 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 / Costs Judgment Following Substantive Judgment
Outcome
Second respondent to pay applicant's costs; applicant to pay third and fourth respondents' joinder motion costs; no order for indemnity costs.
Legal Topics
['unfair Contract' 'costs Order' 'offers of Compromise' 'redundancy Entitlements' 'joinder of Parties']
['employment Law' 'industrial Law'] ['unfair Contract' 'costs Order' 'offers of Compromise' 'redundancy Entitlements' 'joinder of 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

Application Under S 106 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 / Costs Judgment Following Substantive Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicant is entitled to costs of proceedings where only partially successful' 'Whether the court should depart from the general rule that costs follow the event' 'Whether costs should be apportioned between parties/claims' 'Whether a Bullock order should be made against the second respondent for costs of third and fourth respondents' 'Effectiveness of offers of compromise and Calderbank offers']

Ratio Decidendi

Applicant succeeded overall, though only in one out of several claims; the general rule that costs follow the event applies where the proceedings are not characterised as involving multiple discrete issues; the applicant's success justified an order for costs in his favour despite not succeeding on all claims. Offers of compromise by applicant were not effective or more favourable than outcome, so no order for indemnity costs; proportional reduction not warranted given proceedings were directed to a single contract and overall success.

Court Disposition

Second respondent to pay applicant's costs; applicant to pay third and fourth respondents' joinder motion costs; no order for indemnity costs.

Orders

  • ["Second respondent to pay applicant's costs as agreed or assessed." "Applicant to pay third and fourth respondents' costs of the joinder motion before Marks J as agreed or assessed."]