Chittleborough v Troy Group Pty Ltd [No 2] - [2025] WASCA 4

JURISDICTION     :   SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
TITLE OF COURT :   THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA)
CITATION:   CHITTLEBOROUGH -v- TROY GROUP PTY LTD [No 2] [2025] WASCA 4
CORAM:   BUSS P
MITCHELL JA
VAUGHAN JA

HEARD:   21 NOVEMBER 2024
DELIVERED          :   16 JANUARY 2025
FILE NO/S:   CACV 10 of 2024
BETWEEN:   GLENN CHITTLEBOROUGH
Appellant
AND
TROY GROUP PTY LTD
First Respondent
TROY SMSF PTY LTD AS TRUSTEE FOR THE TROY SUPERANNUATION FUND
Second Respondent
MARK ANTHONY AND GAIL ELAINE TROY as trustee for THE TROY FAMILY TRUST
Third Respondent
DELIA BREE TROY
Fourth Respondent

FILE NO/S: CACV 12 of 2024
BETWEEN: TROY GROUP PTY LTD
First Appellant
TROY SMSF PTY LTD AS TRUSTEE FOR THE TROY SUPERANNUATION FUND
Second Appellant
MARK ANTHONY AND GAIL ELAINE TROY as trustee for THE TROY FAMILY TRUST
Third Appellant
DELIA BREE TROY
Fourth Appellant
AND
GLENN CHITTLEBOROUGH
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :   DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram:   BLACK DCJ
Citation: TROY GROUP PTY LTD -v- CHITTLEBOROUGH [2023] WADC 151
File Number            :   CIV 4783 of 2018

Catchwords:

Practice and procedure - Costs - Costs orders - Whether Respondents should pay the Appellant's costs on the dismissed claims - Turns on own facts

Calculation of loss - Whether unpaid liabilities incurred by a third-party formed part of the Appellants' loss - Third-party subvention - Whether outstanding invoices constituted a genuine liability - Whether the Fourth Appellant had suffered any loss - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

District Court of Western Australia Act 1969 (WA), s 64, s 79
Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA), O 66 r 1

Result:

Appeals dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

CACV 10 of 2024

Counsel:

Appellant	:	J C Yeldon
First Respondent	:	C S Williams
Second Respondent	:	C S Williams
Third Respondent	:	C S Williams
Fourth Respondent	:	C S Williams

Solicitors:

Appellant	:	Huggins Legal
First Respondent	:	Solomon Brothers
Second Respondent	:	Solomon Brothers
Third Respondent	:	Solomon Brothers
Fourth Respondent	:	Solomon Brothers

CACV 12 of 2024

Counsel:

First Appellant	:	C S Williams
Second Appellant	:	C S Williams
Third Appellant	:	C S Williams
Fourth Appellant	:	C S Williams
Respondent	:	J C Yeldon

Solicitors:

First Appellant	:	Solomon Brothers
Second Appellant	:	Solomon Brothers
Third Appellant	:	Solomon Brothers
Fourth Appellant	:	Solomon Brothers
Respondent	:	Huggins Legal

Case(s) referred to in decision(s):

Capitalink Pty Ltd v Withnall [2024] NSWCA 172
Currabubula Holdings Pty Ltd v State Bank of New South Wales [2000] NSWSC 232
Howards Storage World Pty Ltd v Haviv Holdings Pty Ltd [2010] FCAFC 5; (2010) 182 FCR 84
National Insurance Co of New Zealand Ltd v Espagne (1961) 105 CLR 569
Rasch Nominees Pty Ltd v Bartholomaeus [2013] SASCFC 105
Rasch Nominees Pty Ltd v Bartholomaeus [No 3] [2013] SASC 14
Redding v Lee (1983) 151 CLR 117
Strzelecki Holdings Pty Ltd v Jorgensen [2019] WASCA 96; (2019) 54 WAR 388

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT:

Summary

The court is dealing with…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Chittleborough v Troy Group Pty Ltd [No 2] and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2025] WASCA 4
Decision Date: 16 JANUARY 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Chittleborough v Troy Group Pty Ltd [No 2] involved a dispute where the appellant sought costs from the respondents on dismissed claims. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The appellant, Chittleborough, argued that the respondents should bear the costs of the dismissed claims due to specific circumstances surrounding the calculation of loss and the involvement of a third-party.

The court was tasked with determining several legal issues. These included whether the respondents should be liable for the appellant's costs on the dismissed claims, whether unpaid liabilities incurred by a third-party formed part of the appellant's loss, and if outstanding invoices constituted a genuine liability. The court also needed to assess whether the fourth appellant had suffered any loss and whether the case was unique enough to warrant a different outcome.

In reaching its decision, the court examined the specific facts of the case. It concluded that the calculation of loss and the consideration of third-party subvention were matters that needed to be resolved based on the unique circumstances of this case. The court determined that outstanding invoices did not necessarily constitute a genuine liability and that the fourth appellant's loss needed further substantiation. Based on these findings, the court ruled that the respondents were not required to pay the appellant's costs on the dismissed claims.

The court's final orders reflected its reasoning. The respondents were not ordered to pay the appellant's costs on the dismissed claims, and the specific issues of loss calculation and third-party liabilities were left to be resolved in future proceedings. This decision underscored the importance of evaluating each case on its unique facts when determining costs orders in legal disputes.

Orders