Shield Mercantile v Citigroup [2013] NSWSC 287

Shield Mercantile v Citigroup [2013] NSWSC 287

Although Shield succeeded on the underpaid commission claim and would prima facie be entitled to costs, it failed on claims for damages for breach of contract and loss of opportunity, recovered only a small sum compared with the amounts claimed, and the likely costs were many hundreds of thousands of dollars and...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 March 2013
Procedural Posture
Commercial Proceedings Concerning Underpaid Commissions and Breach of Contract; Costs Decision / Post Judgment Costs Argument and Entry of Judgment After Reasons in Shield Mercantile V Citigroup [2013] NSWSC 117
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiff against the defendant in the sum of $233,328.85 including interest to the decision date; no further order as to costs.
Legal Topics
['costs Follow the Event' 'proportionality of Costs' 'uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (nsw) R 42.1' 'uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (nsw) R 42.34' 'underpaid Commissions' 'breach of Contract Damages']
['costs' 'civil Procedure' 'contract' 'commercial Law'] ['costs Follow the Event' 'proportionality of Costs' 'uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (nsw) R 42.1' 'uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (nsw) R 42.34' 'underpaid Commissions' 'breach of Contract Damages']

Source-derived case record

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

Commercial Proceedings Concerning Underpaid Commissions and Breach of Contract; Costs Decision / Post Judgment Costs Argument and Entry of Judgment After Reasons in Shield Mercantile V Citigroup [2013] NSWSC 117

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Shield, having recovered substantially less than it claimed, should receive its costs under UCPR r 42.1.' 'Whether UCPR r 42.34 meant that no costs order should ordinarily be made because the judgment was for less than $500,000 unless proceedings in the Supreme Court rather than the District Court were warranted.' 'Whether proportionality between the amount recovered and the costs of the proceedings justified making no further order as to costs.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although Shield succeeded on the underpaid commission claim and would prima facie be entitled to costs, it failed on claims for damages for breach of contract and loss of opportunity, recovered only a small sum compared with the amounts claimed, and the likely costs were many hundreds of thousands of dollars and disproportionate to the recovery. Making an order for Shield's costs would be unjust, while making a costs order for Citigroup would conflict with UCPR r 42.1. Proportionality was determinative, so the Court made no further order as to costs while maintaining existing costs orders.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiff against the defendant in the sum of $233,328.85 including interest to the decision date; no further order as to costs.

Orders

  • ["Direct entry of judgment for the plaintiff against the defendant in the sum of $233,328.85 including interest to today's date." 'Make no further order as to costs.' 'Order that the exhibits be handed out.' "Direct the parties' solicitors to attend my Associate in Chambers for the purpose of uplifting the...