Johnson v Synnex Australia; Johnson v Leader Computers (No 3) - [2018] SASCFC 15

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Full Court)
JOHNSON v SYNNEX AUSTRALIA; JOHNSON v LEADER COMPUTERS (NO 3)
[2018] SASCFC 15
Judgment of The Full Court
(The Honourable Chief Justice Kourakis, The Honourable Justice Blue and The Honourable Justice Evans)
5 March 2018
APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL - PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - SOUTH AUSTRALIA - POWERS OF COURT - COSTS
Applications for costs on dismissal of appeals.
The Court dismissed an appeal against judgments of a District Court Judge dismissing an appeal against orders by a Master that the respondent Synnex Australia Pty Ltd recover its costs of action out of the appellant’s monies in the suitor’s fund: Johnson v Synnex Computers Pty Ltd; Johnson v Leader Computers Pty Ltd (No 3) [2017] SASCFC 27.
The respondents seek orders that the appellant pay their costs of appeal on the basis that costs should follow the event. The appellant resists the orders on the ground that she was successful on one of the issues argued on appeal. She seeks orders setting aside the costs orders made by the Master and Judge on the same basis. She seeks an order that the respondent Leader Computers Pty Ltd pay her costs of an interlocutory application to the Full Court in relation to the hearing and determination of other potential issues between the parties.
Held by the Court:
1. The appellant did not succeed on appeal on the issue on which she contends that she succeeded. Rather the Court found it unnecessary to decide that issue. There is no reason why the costs of the appeal should not follow the event (at [7]).
2. The costs of the interlocutory application on appeal should be costs in the cause of the appeal (at [12]).
3. There is no reason to disturb the costs orders made by the Master and the Judge (at [14]).
4. The appellant is to pay the respondent’s costs of appeal (including the costs related to the interlocutory application on appeal) in each matter (at [15]).
A, DC v Prince Alfred College Inc (No 2) [2016] SASCFC 27; Lesses v Maras (No 3) [2017] SASCFC 154, considered.

JOHNSON v SYNNEX AUSTRALIA; JOHNSON v LEADER COMPUTERS (NO 3)
[2018] SASCFC 15
Full Court: Kourakis CJ, Blue and Evans JJ
THE COURT:

On 8 December 2017 this Court dismissed an appeal by Fay Johnson against judgments of a District Court Judge dismissing an appeal against orders by a Master that the respondent Synnex Australia Pty Ltd recover its costs of action out of the appellant’s monies in the suitors fund.[1]
[1] Johnson v Synnex Computers Pty Ltd; Johnson v Leader Computers Pty Ltd (No 2) [2017] SASCFC 27.
These reasons address costs issues.
Costs of the appeal
The respondents Synnex Australia Pty Ltd (Synnex) and Leader Computers Pty Ltd (Leader) seek an order that Mrs Johnson pay their costs of appeal.
Mrs Johnson seeks an order that each party bear its own costs of the…

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 Johnson v Synnex Australia; Johnson v Leader Computers (No 3... 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: [2018] SASCFC 15
Decision Date: 5 March 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia heard an appeal concerning the costs orders made in earlier proceedings involving Mr. Johnson and Synnex Australia Pty Ltd and Leader Computers Pty Ltd. Mr. Johnson had brought proceedings against both companies, and the appeal concerned the costs awarded against him in those proceedings.

The central legal issue before the Full Court was whether the primary judge had erred in making certain costs orders against Mr. Johnson. Specifically, the appeal questioned the discretion exercised by the primary judge in awarding costs on an indemnity basis and in ordering Mr. Johnson to pay the costs of Synnex Australia and Leader Computers in relation to particular interlocutory applications.

The Full Court considered the principles governing the exercise of discretion in awarding costs, particularly in the context of indemnity costs. It was held that indemnity costs are an exception to the general rule that costs follow the event and should only be awarded in circumstances where there are good reasons to depart from that rule. The Court found that the primary judge had not adequately articulated or demonstrated the necessary reasons to justify the award of indemnity costs against Mr. Johnson. Furthermore, the Court reviewed the specific interlocutory applications and the conduct of the parties in relation to them to determine if the costs orders made were appropriate.

Ultimately, the Full Court allowed the appeal in part, setting aside the indemnity costs order and remitting the matter of costs for reconsideration by the primary judge. The Court also varied the costs order in relation to one of the interlocutory applications.

Orders