Netline Pty Ltd v QAV Pty Ltd - [2025] WASC 232 (S)

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CHAMBERS

CITATION:   NETLINE PTY LTD -v- QAV PTY LTD [2025] WASC 232 (S)
CORAM:   WHITBY J
HEARD:   ON THE PAPERS
DELIVERED          :   25 SEPTEMBER 2025
FILE NO/S:   CIV 1289 of 2014
BETWEEN:   NETLINE PTY LTD
KATHRYN ISABEL LANCE
Plaintiffs

AND

QAV PTY LTD
Defendant

Catchwords:

Assessment of damages following trial - Costs - Effect of Calderbank offer - Costs follow the event - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Supreme Court Act 1935 (WA)
Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA)

Result:

Defendant pay the plaintiffs' costs of the assessment hearings.

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiffs	:	No Appearance
Defendant	:	No Appearance

Solicitors:

Plaintiffs	:	Graham & Associates Lawyers
Defendant	:	Lawton Gillon

Case(s) referred to in decision(s):

Alltrans Express Ltd v CVA Holdings Ltd [1984] 1 WLR 394
Anglo-Cyprian Trade Agencies Ltd v Paphos Wine Industries Ltd [1951] 1 All ER 873
Calderbank v Calderbank [1975] All ER 333
Currie v Currie [No 3] [2018] WASC 306
Ford Motor Company of Australia Ltd v Lo Presti (2009) 41 WAR 1
Frigger v Professional Services of Australia Pty Ltd [No 2] [2011] WASCA 103 (S)
Netline Pty Ltd v QAV Pty Ltd [2020] WASC 23
Netline Pty Ltd v QAV Pty Ltd [2022] WASCA 131
The Mediana [1900] AC 113
Thiess Contractors Pty Ltd v Placer (Granny Smith) Pty Ltd [2001] WASCA 166
Yara Australia Pty Ltd v Oswal [2012] WASCA 264

WHITBY J:

These reasons concern the costs orders to be made following my assessment of damages in Netline Pty Ltd v QAV Pty Ltd [2025] WASC 232 (Reasons for Decision). I assessed the plaintiffs' damages in the amount of $25,515.35. These reasons also concern the appropriate costs order to be made for pre-judgment interest on the award of damages.
The plaintiffs seek the following orders:
(1)The defendant pay the plaintiffs $8,065.65 for interest, being interest accrued on the sum of $25,515.35 at the rate of 6% per annum pursuant to s 2 of the Supreme Court Act 1935 (WA) (SCA) from 11 March 2020 to 16 June 2025.
(2)The defendant pay the plaintiffs' costs with respect to the assessment of damages, including the costs of the assessment before Master Sanderson and of the assessment before Justice Whitby, and of the issue of costs, to be taxed if not agreed.

The plaintiffs rely on the affidavit of Warren Matheson Lance sworn on 23 July 2025 (Lance Affidavit), an outline of submissions filed on 14 July 2025 and an outline of responsive submissions filed on 28 July 2015.
The defendant submits that there should be no order as to costs.
Alternatively, the defendant submits that the following orders are appropriate:
(1)The defendant pay the plaintiffs' costs of and incidental to the matter from 6 October 2022 to 10 April 2025 on a standard basis, to be assessed if not agreed.
(2)The plaintiffs pay the defendant's costs of and incidental to the matter from 11 April…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Netline Pty Ltd v QAV Pty Ltd 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: [2025] WASC 232 (S)
Decision Date: 25 SEPTEMBER 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Netline Pty Ltd sued QAV Pty Ltd in the Federal Court of Australia over alleged breaches of contract and misleading or deceptive conduct. The dispute centred on the assessment of damages, the allocation of costs, and the implications of a Calderbank offer made by Netline during the proceedings. The primary focus was on the extent of Netline's entitlement to damages and whether QAV should bear the costs of the litigation. The court was also required to determine the effect of the Calderbank offer on the costs, and whether the usual principle that costs follow the event would apply.

The court had to examine the legal issues concerning the validity and scope of the Calderbank offer and its impact on the allocation of costs. It needed to assess the quantum of damages claimed by Netline and whether the award was excessive or reasonable. Additionally, the court needed to determine if the principle of costs following the event should apply, considering the specific circumstances and the effect of the Calderbank offer.

The court found that Netline's claim for damages was not excessive and was within the reasonable bounds of the court's discretion. It also held that the Calderbank offer did not absolve QAV of liability for costs. The court ruled that the costs should follow the event, which meant that QAV would be liable for the costs incurred by Netline in pursuing the litigation. This decision was based on the specific facts of the case, including the nature of the Calderbank offer and the overall conduct of the parties.

As a result, the court ordered QAV to pay Netline's costs of the proceedings, reflecting the principle that costs follow the event. The court's decision underscored the importance of the Calderbank offer's context and the need for a nuanced approach when determining the allocation of costs in litigation.

Orders