Legal Research
Cases
Just Group Limited v van Dyk

Just Group Limited v van Dyk

Case [2016] VSC 66 23 February 2016

Costs

Discontinuance

Civil Litigation & Procedure

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMERCIAL COURT

S CI 2013 5404

JUST GROUP LIMITED (ACN 096 911 410)	Plaintiff
v
JOSEPH VAN DYK	First Defendant
- and -
PEPKOR SOUTH EAST ASIA PTY LIMITED (ACN 081 408 791)	Second Defendant
- and -
BEST & LESS PTY LTD (ACN 003 724 696)	Third Defendant

---

JUDGE:	SLOSS J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	22 February 2016
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	23 February 2016
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Just Group Limited v van Dyk & Ors
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2016] VSC 66

COSTS – Discontinuance of proceeding in circumstances where effluxion of time rendered otiose much of the relief sought – Court’s discretion as to costs – Whether discontinuance was an ‘effective surrender’ – Consideration of parties’ respective obligations under s 24 of the Civil Procedure Act 2010 (Vic) – Each party to bear own costs.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr R Dalton	Arnold Bloch Leibler
For the Defendants	Mr C O’Grady S.C. with Mr B J Avallone	Herbert Smith Freehills

HER HONOUR:

Introduction

By summons dated 27 November 2015 the plaintiff, Just Group Limited, seeks leave to discontinue this proceeding pursuant to r 25.02(2)(b) of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015 (Vic) (the ‘Rules’). It also seeks an order that there be no order as to costs.

The defendants, being respectively Mr Joseph van Dyk (a former employee of the plaintiff), Pepkor South East Asia Pty Ltd (‘Pepkor’) (the parent company of Mr van Dyk’s current employer) and Best & Less Pty Ltd (Mr van Dyk’s current employer) consent to the proceeding being discontinued but on the basis that the plaintiff pays their costs in the proceeding on an indemnity basis or alternatively on a party/party basis.

The plaintiff and the defendants each filed affidavits in support and an outline of written submissions in advance of the hearing. Oral submissions were made yesterday in support of their rival submissions.

The substantive dispute arose as a result of the retail store manager of Just Jeans Mildura, Ms Susanne Albion, moving from her employment with the plaintiff to the position of store manager with the Mildura Best & Less retail store and commencing employment there on 30 September 2013. In essence, the plaintiff contended that Mr van Dyk procured Ms Albion to resign from her employment with the plaintiff and to commence employment with Best & Less, and that in so doing, he misused confidential information. Mr van Dyk had previously been the National Sales Manager of Just Jeans before leaving his employment with the plaintiff to take up a position as Head of Retail Sales at Best & Less in July 2013. The plaintiff also alleged that the second and third defendants were liable as accessories to the alleged breaches of Mr van Dyk.

Background and Procedural History

The background events and the procedural history of the litigation are outlined in the affidavit of Mr Zaven Mardirossian, sworn 27 November…

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.

Continue reading Just Group Limited v van Dyk

Details

AGLC: Just Group Limited v van Dyk [2016] VSC 66
Case: [2016] VSC 66
Decision Date: 23 February 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Just Group Limited v van Dyk, the court was tasked with determining the allocation of costs following the discontinuance of proceedings. The proceedings were initiated by Just Group Limited against van Dyk, but were subsequently discontinued by Just Group Limited before judgment was given. The nature of the dispute involved the interpretation and application of the Civil Procedure Act 2010 (Vic), specifically in relation to the court's discretion regarding costs after a party discontinues proceedings.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the discontinuance of the proceedings constituted an "effective surrender" of the plaintiff's claim, and if so, whether this would impact the allocation of costs. The court also had to consider the obligations of both parties under section 24 of the Civil Procedure Act 2010 (Vic), which pertains to the costs that each party must bear. The court needed to assess whether the discontinuance had rendered much of the relief sought by the plaintiff obsolete due to the passage of time and if this influenced the exercise of its discretion.

In rendering its decision, the court held that the discontinuance did not amount to an "effective surrender" of the plaintiff's claim. The court emphasised that the plaintiff's decision to discontinue the proceedings did not absolve the defendant of their obligations under the Act. The court exercised its discretion by determining that each party should bear their own costs, recognising that the circumstances of the discontinuance did not warrant a different allocation of costs. The court's reasoning was grounded in the statutory obligations outlined in the Civil Procedure Act 2010 (Vic), and the principle that costs should follow the cause of the litigation.

No specific orders were made regarding the costs, but the court's decision clarified the principles applicable when a party discontinues proceedings before judgment. Each party was required to bear their own costs, reflecting the court's balanced approach to the parties' respective obligations under the legislation.

Orders