APC v Mr B (No 6) - [2025] NSWSC 825

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: APC v Mr B (No 6) [2025] NSWSC 825
Hearing dates: 8 – 10 October 2024, 27 February 2025
Date of orders: 25 July 2025
Decision date: 25 July 2025
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Schmidt AJ
Decision:
Order that Mr B must pay APC gross costs totalling:
(1) $624,214.83 for the substantive hearing; and
(2) $4,744.84 inclusive of GST for the motion.

Catchwords:
COSTS – gross costs order – where costs ordered on both an ordinary and indemnity basis – where orders not opposed –orders sought supported by relevant evidence – gross costs order made

Legislation Cited:
Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW)
Legal Profession Uniform Law 2014 (NSW)
Legal Profession Uniform Law Application Act 2014 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Ahern v Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd (No 2) [2022] NSWCA 39
APC v Mr B (No 2) [2024] NSWSC 1608
APC v Mr B (No 3) [2025] NSWSC 142
eInduct Systems Pty Ltd v 3D Safety Services Pty Ltd (No 2) [2015] NSWCA 422
Gabrielle v Abood (No 4) [2023] NSWCA 100
Hamod v State of New South Wales [2011] NSWCA 375
Hancock v Rinehart (Lump sum costs) [2015] NSWSC 1640
Harrison v Schipp (2002) 54 NSWLR 738; [2002] NSWCA 213
James v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd [2017] NSWCA 84

Texts Cited:
N/A

Category: Costs
Parties: APC (Plaintiff)
Mr B (Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
M Robinson SC / J McEnaney (Plaintiff)
Solicitors:
Shine Lawyers (Plaintiff)
Self-represented (Defendant)

File Number(s): 2022/302110
Publication restriction: Nil

JUDGMENT

In October 2024 I gave judgment for APC: APC v Mr B (No 2) [2024] NSWSC 1608. Costs were later dealt with in APC v Mr B (No 3) [2025] NSWSC 142, with Mr B being ordered to pay APC’s costs, as agreed or assessed to 19 July 2024 and thereafter, on an indemnity basis.
APC later sought a gross costs order in the sum of $624,214.83. Her May 2025 motion was supported by an affidavit sworn by her solicitor Mr Ingleton. He explained the circumstances in which more time was required to put on evidence and submissions, with the result that further orders fixing a timetable for the filing and service of evidence and submissions were made.
On 27 May a further motion was filed, supported by another affidavit of Mr Ingleton, as well as that of the solicitor Ms Mossman, who was employed by DGT Costs Lawyers. It annexed her May 2025 report, which explained her role and experience in assessing costs, the instructions she had received, the material on which her report rested, the applicable statutory scheme, the issues she had considered and the conclusions she had reached. APC’s claim was concerned with professional fees, counsels’ fees and incurred disbursements.
APC had been directed to file and serve her submissions by no later than 16 June. She did not comply with this direction, providing her submissions only in July.
Mr B had become legally represented and approached on 30 June…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading APC v Mr B (No 6)

Details

AGLC: APC v Mr B (No 6) [2025] NSWSC 825
Case: [2025] NSWSC 825
Decision Date: 25 July 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission, trading as the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission (APC) sued Mr B for damages for misleading or deceptive conduct under section 18 of the Australian Consumer Law. The APC alleged that Mr B had misled the public as to the charitable purpose of a foundation he created and operated. The APC further sought costs and interest in relation to the proceeding. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia.

The court was required to determine whether it should make an order for gross costs and, if so, whether the order should be made on an ordinary basis, an indemnity basis, or a combination of both. The court was required to determine these questions in light of the evidence presented by the APC in support of the orders and the absence of any opposition by Mr B. The court was also required to consider whether the costs claimed were reasonable and whether they were incurred necessarily.

The court found that the APC had demonstrated that the costs claimed were reasonable and had been incurred necessarily. The court found that the orders sought by the APC were supported by relevant evidence and were not opposed by Mr B. The court found that it was appropriate to make a costs order in favour of the APC. The court found that it was appropriate to make the order on both an ordinary and indemnity basis as the APC had not elected to proceed on one basis or the other and the orders were not opposed. The court made an order for gross costs, including costs on both an ordinary and indemnity basis.

Orders