Silverbrook Research Pty Ltd v Lindley [No 2] [2011] NSWCA 29

Silverbrook Research Pty Ltd v Lindley [No 2] [2011] NSWCA 29

Interest was to be calculated on the bonus amounts as submitted by the respondent because no issue as to the respondent's tax affairs had been raised and tax treatment was a matter between the Commissioner of Taxation and the respondent. Costs below were to exclude costs referable exclusively to the abandoned Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) claim. Given the parties' relative success on the two substantive appeal issues, the fair result was that there be no order for costs of the appeal.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 February 2011
Procedural Posture
Costs Assessment and Consequential Orders on Appeal / Consequential Orders After Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Judgment of the District Court set aside; judgment entered for the plaintiff in the amount of $53,921.57 taking effect as at 13 November 2009; defendant to pay plaintiff's trial costs excluding costs referable exclusively to the abandoned Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) claim; no order for costs of the appeal.
Legal Topics
['assessment of Costs' 'interest on Judgment Sum' 'costs of Abandoned Trade Practices Act Claim' 'costs of Appeal']
['costs' 'civil Procedure'] ['assessment of Costs' 'interest on Judgment Sum' 'costs of Abandoned Trade Practices Act Claim' 'costs of Appeal']

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 Assessment and Consequential Orders on Appeal / Consequential Orders After Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether interest on the bonuses should be calculated only on the net after-tax amount of the bonuses.' 'Whether trial costs should exclude costs referable exclusively to the abandoned Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) claim.' 'What order should be made for costs of the appeal.']

Ratio Decidendi

Interest was to be calculated on the bonus amounts as submitted by the respondent because no issue as to the respondent's tax affairs had been raised and tax treatment was a matter between the Commissioner of Taxation and the respondent. Costs below were to exclude costs referable exclusively to the abandoned Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) claim. Given the parties' relative success on the two substantive appeal issues, the fair result was that there be no order for costs of the appeal.

Court Disposition

Judgment of the District Court set aside; judgment entered for the plaintiff in the amount of $53,921.57 taking effect as at 13 November 2009; defendant to pay plaintiff's trial costs excluding costs referable exclusively to the abandoned Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) claim; no order for costs of the appeal.

Orders

  • ['Judgment of the District Court be set aside and in lieu thereof judgment for the plaintiff in the amount of $53,921.57, taking effect as at 13 November 2009.' "The defendant pay the plaintiff's costs, excluding costs referable exclusively to the claim under the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) which was abandoned."...