Kumaran v Employsure Pty Ltd (No 2)

Link copied
Case Copied 9 min read

Court of Appeal


Supreme Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Kumaran v Employsure Pty Ltd (No 2) [2022] NSWCA 247
Hearing dates: On the papers (last submissions 29 November 2022)
Date of orders: 6 December 2022
Decision date: 06 December 2022
Before: Gleeson JA; Leeming JA; Kirk JA
Decision:

(1)   The plaintiff pay 65 per cent of the defendants’ costs of the proceedings at first instance as agreed or assessed.

(2)   The respondent to pay the appellants’ costs of the appeal as agreed or assessed.

(3)   For the avoidance of doubt, order (2) does not include any costs in this appeal referable to the “protectable interest” issue.

Catchwords:

COSTS – costs at first instance following different outcome on appeal – costs of appeal – whether costs should follow the event, or whether fractional costs order should be made

Legislation Cited:

Restraint of Trade Act 1976 (NSW)

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), r 42.1

Cases Cited:

Calvo v Ellimark Pty Ltd (No 2) [2016] NSWCA 197

Doppstadt Australia Pty Ltd v Lovick & Son Developments Pty Ltd (No 2) [2014] NSWCA 219

McMurchy v Employsure Pty Ltd; Kumaran v Employsure Pty Ltd [2022] NSWCA 201

Windsurfing International Inc v Petit [1987] AIPC 90-441

Category:Costs
Parties: Arumugam Kumaran (First appellant)
ELMO Software Limited Pty Ltd (ABN 13 102 455 087) (Second appellant)
Employsure Pty Ltd (ABN 40 145 676 026) (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
I M Neil SC / P Lowson (Appellants)
P J Brereton SC / P Moorhouse (Respondent)

Solicitors:
K & L Gates (Appellants)
Kardos Scanlan (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2021/328225
 Decision under appeal 
Court or tribunal:
Supreme Court of New South Wales
Jurisdiction:
Equity Division
Citation:

[2021] NSWSC 1179

Date of Decision:
26 October 2021
Before:
Sackar J
File Number(s):
2021/16210; 2021/53385

Judgment

  1. THE COURT: The Court delivered judgment in two related appeals on 11 October 2022: McMurchy v Employsure Pty Ltd; Kumaran v Employsure Pty Ltd [2022] NSWCA 201 (the appeal judgment). The McMurchy appeal was dismissed with costs. In the Kumaran appeal, the Court held that the primary judge erred in finding that a post-employment restraint against competition for a duration of nine months was reasonable. The Court allowed the appeal and set aside several orders below, including an order that the defendants (Mr Kumaran and ELMO Software Ltd (ELMO)) pay the plaintiff’s (Employsure) costs of the proceedings as agreed or assessed, and in lieu, ordered that the summons filed 24 February 2021 be dismissed. The Court reserved the question of costs on appeal and directed the parties to file and serve submissions as to appropriate consequential costs orders in this Court and below, noting that the question of costs would be determined on the papers. Those submissions have now been received.

Costs at first instance

  1. Mr Kumaran and ELMO seek an order that Employsure pay their costs of the proceedings below as agreed or assessed, relying upon the usual rule in Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) (UCPR), r 42.1, that costs should follow the…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Kumaran v Employsure 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
[2022] NSWCA 247
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal concerned the costs of proceedings at first instance and the costs of the appeal itself, following a different outcome on appeal. The parties involved were the plaintiff, Kumaran, and the defendants, Employsure Pty Ltd.

The court was required to determine whether costs should follow the event in the proceedings at first instance, or if a fractional costs order was more appropriate. Additionally, the court had to consider the costs of the appeal.

The court ordered that the plaintiff pay 65 per cent of the defendants’ costs of the proceedings at first instance. The respondent was ordered to pay the appellants’ costs of the appeal. For clarity, it was specified that the order for costs of the appeal did not include any costs referable to the "protectable interest" issue.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) The plaintiff pay 65 per cent of the defendants’ costs of the proceedings at first instance as agreed or assessed.

(2) The respondent to pay the appellants’ costs of the appeal as agreed or assessed.

(3) For the avoidance of doubt, order (2) does not include any costs in this appeal referable to the “protectable interest” issue.

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.