Joubert in his capacity as liquidator of Barry Ling Pty Ltd (in Liquidation) v Allan Jones (No 2)

Case [2013] NSWSC 572


Supreme Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Joubert in his capacity as liquidator of Barry Ling Pty Ltd (in Liquidation) v Allan Jones (No 2) [2013] NSWSC 572
Hearing dates:2 April 2013
Decision date: 02 April 2013
Before: McCallum J
Decision:

No order as to costs

Catchwords: PROCEDURE - judgments and orders - costs - costs of proceedings below to reflect outcome of appeal - no order as to costs of appeal
Cases Cited: Joubert v Jones [2013] NSWSC 280
Category:Costs
Parties: Randall Joubert (plaintiff)
Allan Jones (first defendant)
Jacqueline Jones (second defendant
Representation: Counsel:
S Golledge (plaintiff)
R Marshall (defendants)
Solicitors:
Polczynski Lawyers (plaintiff)
Bartier Perry (first defendant)
Jacqueline Jones (second defendant)
File Number(s):2013/12643
Publication restriction:None

JUDGMENT - ex tempore

  1. HER HONOUR: I have this morning given judgment and published my reasons for dismissing the liquidator's appeal against the verdict for the first defendant in the court below and for allowing the appeal against the verdict for the second defendant in the court below: see Joubert v Jones [2013] NSWSC 280.

  1. In that judgment at [50], I indicated that I would hear the parties as to the costs of the proceedings below and in this Court. Having heard the parties, I propose to make the following orders as to the costs of the proceedings below:

(1)   that the plaintiff have leave to appeal against the order as to costs insofar as it concerns the second defendant;

(2)   that the appeal against that order be allowed;

(3)   that the order be vacated insofar as it concerns the second defendant and in lieu thereof that the second defendant be ordered to pay half of the plaintiff's costs of the proceedings below on the ordinary basis.

  1. As to the costs of the proceedings in this Court, I propose to make no order as to costs.

  1. My reason for ordering the second defendant to pay half of the plaintiff's costs of the proceedings below is that such an order gives effect to the general rule that costs follow the event whilst obviating the complexity of an assessment, which would have to differentiate between the costs incurred by the liquidator as against each of the two defendants.

  1. Mr Golledge, on behalf of the liquidator, has brought to my attention the fact that there was in the proceedings below a Calderbank letter dated 6 December 2011 which offered to compromise the proceedings for a result which has now been bettered by the verdict entered today. The verdict entered is in the sum of $70,000, whilst the Calderbank letter indicated that the liquidator would compromise the proceedings on the basis that he would accept $68,000 inclusive of costs and interest. As noted on behalf of the second defendant, however, the offer was addressed to both defendants. The claim was a joint claim against both defendants but the first defendant, Mr Jones, has been successful in retaining the verdict in his favour entered in the proceedings below. In all the circumstances, I consider the fair result to be simply to order Mrs Jones to pay half of the liquidator's costs.

  1. As to the costs of the proceedings in this Court, as noted in my earlier judgment at [4], the liquidator indicated at the outset of the hearing before me that he did not seek to disturb the verdict in favour of Mr Jones. Accordingly, the appeal as against him was dismissed by consent. That indication having come only on the morning of the hearing it would not, if Mr Jones were the only respondent to the appeal, have saved any costs. The appeal against Mrs Jones proceeded and was successful. In all the circumstances I think, and neither party sought to be heard against this, that a fair result would be to make no order as to costs. Those are the orders of the court.

  1. I note the undertaking to the Court given by the plaintiff not to enforce the judgment against the second defendant for a period of fourteen days.

**********

Details
AGLC
Joubert in his capacity as liquidator of Barry Ling Pty Ltd (in Liquidation) v Allan Jones (No 2) [2013] NSWSC 572
Case
[2013] NSWSC 572
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved Joubert, acting as liquidator of Barry Ling Pty Ltd (in liquidation), who brought an action against Allan Jones. The nature of the dispute centred around the costs incurred in proceedings below, specifically whether the costs should reflect the outcome of an appeal. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The court had to determine whether it should make an order for costs in relation to the appeal itself, and if so, what that order should entail.

The primary legal issue was whether the liquidator, as the successful party in the appeal, was entitled to an order for costs of the appeal proceedings. The court needed to consider the general principle that the costs of proceedings should follow the event, and whether this principle should apply equally to the costs of an appeal. Furthermore, the court had to decide whether the fact that the liquidator had only partially succeeded in the appeal should affect the costs order.

In addressing these issues, the court noted that while the general rule is that the costs of proceedings follow the event, this principle does not automatically extend to the costs of the appeal itself. The court found that there were special circumstances in this case which warranted a different approach. The court held that, given the partial success of the liquidator in the appeal, it would not be appropriate to make an order as to the costs of the appeal. Consequently, the liquidator was not entitled to an order for the costs of the appeal proceedings. The court's decision was based on a careful consideration of the circumstances and the principle that costs should reflect the outcome of the proceedings.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.