LVMH Watch and Jewellery Australia Pty Limited v Michael Lassanah (Costs)
Case
•
[2011] NSWCA 407
•19 December 2011
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
LVMH Watch and Jewellery Australia Pty Limited v Michael Lassanah (Costs) [2011] NSWCA 407
[2011] NSWCA 407
19 December 2011
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This matter concerned an appeal and cross-appeal before the New South Wales Court of Appeal, comprising Giles and Campbell JJA and Bergin CJ in Eq. The dispute arose from proceedings in the District Court where the appellant, LVMH Watch and Jewellery Australia Pty Limited, had been involved in claims concerning defamation and false imprisonment, and subsequent cross-claims for contribution and indemnity between the parties.
The primary legal issues before the Court of Appeal were the appropriate orders for costs in relation to the District Court proceedings, the appeal, and the cross-appeal, and whether the respondents were entitled to indemnity certificates under the Suitors' Fund Act 1951. The court was required to determine the extent of success of each party in the various stages of the litigation and to apply the principles governing costs orders and the granting of indemnity certificates.
The court reasoned that the conduct of the appellant's employees was the primary cause of the events giving rise to the claims. Despite the appellant's submission that it was important to its international reputation to pursue the appeal, the court noted that the appellant had settled its defamation case with the respondents prior to trial and had made an apology. The appellant had also failed in its attempt to obtain leave to appeal regarding contribution and indemnity orders. The court found that the respondents were partially successful in resisting the applications for leave to appeal but were unsuccessful on the cross-appeal. Consequently, the court ordered that the appellant and the Police pay 65% of the respondents' costs of the District Court proceedings, with the appellant indemnifying the Police for this amount. The court also ordered that the respondents pay the costs of the appellant and the Police in respect of the appeal, and the costs of the Police in respect of the cross-appeal. Finally, the court granted the respondents indemnity certificates under the Suitors' Fund Act 1951 in respect of both the appeal and the cross-appeal.
The primary legal issues before the Court of Appeal were the appropriate orders for costs in relation to the District Court proceedings, the appeal, and the cross-appeal, and whether the respondents were entitled to indemnity certificates under the Suitors' Fund Act 1951. The court was required to determine the extent of success of each party in the various stages of the litigation and to apply the principles governing costs orders and the granting of indemnity certificates.
The court reasoned that the conduct of the appellant's employees was the primary cause of the events giving rise to the claims. Despite the appellant's submission that it was important to its international reputation to pursue the appeal, the court noted that the appellant had settled its defamation case with the respondents prior to trial and had made an apology. The appellant had also failed in its attempt to obtain leave to appeal regarding contribution and indemnity orders. The court found that the respondents were partially successful in resisting the applications for leave to appeal but were unsuccessful on the cross-appeal. Consequently, the court ordered that the appellant and the Police pay 65% of the respondents' costs of the District Court proceedings, with the appellant indemnifying the Police for this amount. The court also ordered that the respondents pay the costs of the appellant and the Police in respect of the appeal, and the costs of the Police in respect of the cross-appeal. Finally, the court granted the respondents indemnity certificates under the Suitors' Fund Act 1951 in respect of both the appeal and the cross-appeal.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Civil Procedure
Legal Concepts
-
Costs
-
Appeal
-
Standing
-
Remedies
-
Procedural Fairness
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
LVMH Watch and Jewellery Australia Pty Limited v Michael Lassanah (Costs) [2011] NSWCA 407
Most Recent Citation
Adams v Groegor (No. 2) [2012] NSWDC 30
Cases Citing This Decision
2
Munro v Wheeler (No 3)
[2025] NSWDC 3
Adams v Groegor (No. 2)
[2012] NSWDC 30
Cases Cited
7
Statutory Material Cited
1
LVMH Watch & Jewellery Australia Pty Ltd v Lassanah
[2011] NSWCA 370
Lassanah v State of New South Wales (No. 3)
[2010] NSWDC 241
Lassanah v State of New South Wales (No. 4)
[2010] NSWDC 284