Lets Go Adventures Pty Limited v Barrett

Court of Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:	Lets Go Adventures Pty Limited v Barrett [2018] NSWCA 2
Hearing dates:	16 January 2018
Date of orders:	16 January 2018
Decision date:	16 January 2018
Before:	White JA
Decision:	Refer to judgment at [31]
Catchwords:	Practice and Procedure – Freezing order – No question of principle
Cases Cited:	Lets Go Adventures Pty Ltd v Barrett [2017] NSWCA 243
Category:	Procedural and other rulings
Parties:	Lets Go Adventures Pty Ltd (Applicant) Dean Barrett (Respondent)
Representation:	Counsel: C J M Palmer (Applicant) Self-represented (Respondent)   Solicitors: Colin Biggers & Paisley
File Number(s):	2016/365672

Judgment

1. HIS HONOUR: This is an application for the extension of a freezing order made on 10 January 2018 on the ex parte application of the applicant.

2. The applicant was the appellant in an appeal heard on 31 August and 1 September 2017 from orders of the District Court (Gibson DCJ). The respondent to the appeal, Mr Dean Barrett, was the plaintiff in the proceedings in the District Court. On 22 September 2017 the judgment given in his favour in the District Court was set aside on appeal and this Court ordered that there be judgment for the defendant, the present applicant, Lets Go Adventures Pty Limited. This Court ordered that Mr Barrett pay the costs of Let’s Go Adventures of the trial and of the appeal (Lets Go Adventures Pty Ltd v Barrett [2017] NSWCA 243).

3. On 13 October 2017, the solicitors for Lets Go Adventures wrote to the solicitors then acting for Mr Barrett advising that costs and disbursements had been incurred of approximately $483,694. They invited Mr Barrett's solicitors to make an offer to settle the amount of costs and disbursements that will be payable pursuant to the costs orders.

4. No application for special leave to appeal to the High Court has been filed. Mr Barrett says that he is investigating the making of such an application and, as I understand his submissions, is minded to bring such an application.

5. There has been no substantive response to the applicant's solicitors' request for an offer to be made to seek to agree the amount of costs payable pursuant to the orders of this Court. Instructions have been given by the applicant to a firm of cost consultants to prepare a bill of costs.

6. Following the applicant's solicitors' advice of the amount of costs the applicant will be claiming, a property in Heshbon Street, Gateshead, of which Mr Barrett is the registered proprietor, was advertised for sale through real estate agents known as Global Property International. The advertised range of likely sale price was between $495,000 to $530,000.

7. Mr Barrett's solicitors advised the applicant's solicitors that they were not further acting for Mr Barrett. On 15 December 2017 the applicant’s solicitors wrote to Mr Barrett asking him to respond on the question of costs. They also advised Mr Barrett that it had come to their attention that the Gateshead property had been listed for sale.…