Stillwell Trucks Pty Ltd v Williams [2018] NSWDC 38

Stillwell Trucks Pty Ltd v Williams [2018] NSWDC 38

The defendant had notice of the hearing but did not appear, and the evidence, including the forensic accountant's report and invoice review, established that he alone operated a fraudulent scheme causing the plaintiff losses of $127,808.14 between 1 October 2011 and 5 March 2014. With interest calculated under the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), judgment should be entered for $162,879.71. A gross sum costs order was appropriate because the costs were modest and a separate costs assessment would be disproportionate; allowing disbursements in full and reducing solicitor and client costs only slightly produced costs of $9,487.69.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 February 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Proceeding for Breach of Contract and Assessment of Damages and Costs / Assessment of Damages and Application for Gross Sum Costs Order After Default Judgment; Defendant Did Not Appear
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiff for $162,879.71 inclusive of interest, with the defendant ordered to pay gross sum costs of $9,487.69.
Legal Topics
['breach of Contract by Former Employee' 'fraudulent Claims and Invoices' 'default Judgment' 'assessment of Damages' 'gross Sum Costs Order' 'non Appearance at Hearing']
['contract' 'civil Procedure' 'costs' 'employment'] ['breach of Contract by Former Employee' 'fraudulent Claims and Invoices' 'default Judgment' 'assessment of Damages' 'gross Sum Costs Order' 'non Appearance at Hearing']

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

Civil Proceeding for Breach of Contract and Assessment of Damages and Costs / Assessment of Damages and Application for Gross Sum Costs Order After Default Judgment; Defendant Did Not Appear

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the plaintiff proved the losses claimed for the defendant's breach of contract arising from fraudulent ordering and collection of accessories." 'Whether interest should be awarded under s 100 Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW).' 'Whether a gross sum costs order should be made under s 98 Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), and in what amount.' 'What procedure should be followed where the opposing party does not attend the hearing.']

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant had notice of the hearing but did not appear, and the evidence, including the forensic accountant's report and invoice review, established that he alone operated a fraudulent scheme causing the plaintiff losses of $127,808.14 between 1 October 2011 and 5 March 2014. With interest calculated under the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), judgment should be entered for $162,879.71. A gross sum costs order was appropriate because the costs were modest and a separate costs assessment would be disproportionate; allowing disbursements in full and reducing solicitor and client costs only slightly produced costs of $9,487.69.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiff for $162,879.71 inclusive of interest, with the defendant ordered to pay gross sum costs of $9,487.69.

Orders

  • ['Defendant called outside Court 13D three times at 10:10am – No appearance.' 'Judgment for the plaintiff for the sum of $162,879.71 inclusive of interest.' "Pursuant to s 98 Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), the defendant is to pay the plaintiff's costs of $9,487.69 on a gross sum basis." 'Direct the Registrar to...