Anderson v Canaccord Genuity Financial Ltd (No 2)

Anderson v Canaccord Genuity Financial Ltd (No 2) concerned a dispute between the plaintiff, Ms Anderson, and several defendants, including Canaccord Genuity Financial Ltd, Ms Garrett, Mr Renauf, and PPB. The case involved complex issues surrounding the plaintiff's settlement with one defendant after judgment had been entered, the rule against double recovery, and the assessment of costs for a lengthy and complex trial and appeal. The matter was heard by Gleeson, Leeming and White JJA in the Court of Appeal of New South Wales.

The primary legal issues before the Court of Appeal were the significance of a plaintiff characterising a settlement payment from one defendant as being for costs, the scope of the rule against double recovery in light of a post-judgment settlement and release, and the nature of defendants' liability after judgment entry. Additionally, the court was required to determine whether the materials before it were sufficient to make a gross sum costs order, whether costs associated with after-the-event insurance constituted disbursements or expenses, and how costs should be discounted, particularly in relation to matters necessitated by an application for security for costs by ultimately unsuccessful respondents.

The Court of Appeal reasoned that the rule against double recovery is a fundamental principle preventing a party from recovering more than their actual loss. The court considered the effect of the plaintiff settling with and releasing a defendant after judgment, noting that such an action could impact the remaining defendants' liabilities. Regarding costs, the court examined the necessity and reasonableness of expenses, including those related to insurance, and the application of discounts. The court ultimately dismissed notices of motion filed by certain respondents, ordered that judgments entered against other defendants attract interest, and set aside a prior order in part.