Jacques v Forte Enterprises Pty Ltd (No 2)

The case of Jacques v Forte Enterprises Pty Ltd (No 2) involves the plaintiff, Jacques, pursuing damages against the defendant, Forte Enterprises Pty Ltd, following a previous judgment. The court had to address several issues arising from the initial judgment, including corrections to the amount of damages, the calculation of profits from a unit purchase, and the allocation of costs. The plaintiff also sought an order for the defendant to pay his costs, while the defendant argued for a limitation of costs and raised the possibility of an appeal. Additionally, the second defendant argued for no judgment against it and a costs order in its favour.

The legal issues in this case involved the correction of an arithmetical error in the previous judgment, the interpretation of an agreed figure for the profit on a unit purchase, and the appropriate allocation of costs under the circumstances. The court needed to determine whether the plaintiff's understanding of the concession made by the defendant's counsel was sufficient to warrant reopening the matter. Furthermore, the court had to consider the general rule that costs follow the event, but also whether the plaintiff's success was partial, and if so, whether this justified a reduction in the costs awarded.

The court acknowledged that there was a misunderstanding between the parties regarding the agreed figure for the profit on the unit purchase. The judge accepted that the plaintiff's counsel understood the defendant's counsel to have conceded a figure of $100,000, and the interests of justice were best served by allowing the plaintiff to further substantiate this understanding. The court also rejected the defendant's argument for a limitation of costs despite the plaintiff's claim being significantly less than initially sought, as the plaintiff had not failed on separate issues and thus there was no basis for a reduction in the awarded costs.

The court ordered that the amount of damages be corrected to $60,514, allowed the plaintiff to make further submissions regarding the profit on the unit purchase, and rejected the defendant's application for a limitation of costs. The court did not grant the second defendant's request for no judgment against it and a costs order in its favour, nor did it stay the proceedings pending a potential appeal.