White Property Developments Ltd v Richmond Growth Pty Ltd & Ors [1998] FCA 253

White Property Developments Ltd v Richmond Growth Pty Ltd & Ors [1998] FCA 253

Although White Property failed against the second, third and fourth respondents on reliance and in that sense did not establish a case against them, their deceptive, dishonest or reprehensible conduct invited the proceedings and justified departing from the usual costs order. However, because Richmond Growth's conduct was solely influenced by and consisted of the conduct of the personal respondents, there was no separate conduct by Richmond Growth making it fair to impose the personal respondents' costs on it by a Sanderson or Bullock order. Each personal respondent was therefore to pay his own costs, subject to the applicant paying indemnity costs for specified hearings and applications...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 March 1998
Procedural Posture
Costs Determination Following Contract, Trade Practices Act and Fair Trading Act Claims / Final Orders on Costs and Judgment
Outcome
Judgment was entered for the applicant against the first respondent and for the second, third and fourth respondents against the applicant. The first respondent was ordered to pay damages, interest and the applicant's costs, subject to specified indemnity costs orders. No order for costs was made between the...
Legal Topics
['costs Following the Event' 'sanderson Order' 'bullock Order' 'indemnity Costs' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'reliance']
['contract Law' 'costs' 'trade Practices' 'fair Trading'] ['costs Following the Event' 'sanderson Order' 'bullock Order' 'indemnity Costs' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'reliance']

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 Determination Following Contract, Trade Practices Act and Fair Trading Act Claims / Final Orders on Costs and Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether costs should follow the event where the applicant succeeded in contract against the first respondent but failed on Trade Practices Act and Fair Trading Act claims against all respondents other than the contract claim.' 'Whether no order for costs should be made against the applicant in favour of the second, third and fourth respondents because of their conduct.' 'Whether a Sanderson order or Bullock order should be made requiring Richmond Growth to bear or indemnify costs of the personal respondents.' 'Whether the applicant should pay indemnity costs for hearings and applications concerning further evidence.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although White Property failed against the second, third and fourth respondents on reliance and in that sense did not establish a case against them, their deceptive, dishonest or reprehensible conduct invited the proceedings and justified departing from the usual costs order. However, because Richmond Growth's conduct was solely influenced by and consisted of the conduct of the personal respondents, there was no separate conduct by Richmond Growth making it fair to impose the personal respondents' costs on it by a Sanderson or Bullock order. Each personal respondent was therefore to pay his own costs, subject to the applicant paying indemnity costs for specified hearings and applications...

Court Disposition

Judgment was entered for the applicant against the first respondent and for the second, third and fourth respondents against the applicant. The first respondent was ordered to pay damages, interest and the applicant's costs, subject to specified indemnity costs orders. No order for costs was made between the...

Orders

  • ['Judgment be entered for the applicant against the first respondent.' 'Judgment be entered for the second, third and fourth respondent against the applicant.' 'The first respondent pay the applicant the sum of two hundred and fifty thousand dollars ($250,000.00).' 'The first respondent pay the applicant interest on...