BDO Group Holdings (Qld) Limited v Sully (No 2)

Case

[2015] QSC 201

21 July 2015


Details
AGLC Case Decision Date
BDO Group Holdings (Qld) Limited v Sully (No 2) [2015] QSC 201 [2015] QSC 201 21 July 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of BDO Group Holdings (Qld) Limited v Sully (No 2), the applicants sought an order to restrain the respondent from working in a competing business in contravention of a restraint of trade clause in his contract of employment. The applicants were substantially successful in their action. The respondent, however, sought an order that each party pay their own costs or, alternatively, that the applicants only be entitled to a proportion of their costs. The court was required to decide whether the general rule that costs follow the event should apply, or whether there were grounds to depart from this rule.

The legal issue before the court was whether the general principle that costs follow the event should apply in this case, or if there were exceptional circumstances justifying a departure from this rule. The applicants had been substantially successful in their action, and the court needed to determine if this was sufficient to warrant the imposition of costs on the respondent. The respondent argued that the applicants should only receive a proportion of their costs due to the nature of the relief sought and the fact that the restraint of trade clause was not specifically enforced.

The court found that the general rule that costs follow the event should apply in this case. The applicants were substantially successful in their action, which justified the imposition of costs on the respondent. The court held that there were no exceptional circumstances that warranted a departure from the general rule. The court considered that the nature of the relief sought and the fact that the restraint of trade clause was not specifically enforced did not alter the outcome in terms of costs.

The court ordered that the respondent pay the applicants’ costs of the proceeding to be assessed or otherwise agreed. This outcome was based on the applicants’ substantial success in their action and the absence of any exceptional circumstances that would warrant a departure from the general rule that costs follow the event.
Details

Areas of Law

  • Civil Litigation & Procedure

Legal Concepts

  • Costs

  • Limitation Periods

  • Restraint of Trade

Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document


Cases Citing This Decision

0