Network Ten Pty Limited v van Onselen (No 2)

Network Ten Pty Limited initiated proceedings against van Onselen, asserting that he breached a non-disparagement clause contained in a Deed of Release. The dispute was brought before the Court, which was tasked with determining the validity of the non-disparagement clause, whether the defendant breached it, and the appropriate remedies for any such breach. The Court was also required to consider the costs associated with the litigation, particularly in light of the plaintiff's partial success.

The Court found that the plaintiff had indeed established the breach of the non-disparagement clause and made a declaration to that effect. However, the Court declined to grant an injunction to prevent further breaches, reasoning that there was no realistic risk of the defendant breaching the clause again. Despite the plaintiff's success in establishing the breach, the Court considered the defendant's persistent denial of both the breach and the validity of the non-disparagement clause. The Court concluded that the plaintiff was entitled to an order for costs as it had, in practical terms, succeeded in circumstances where the defendant had denied breach and the validity of the clause.

Ultimately, the Court ordered van Onselen to pay costs to Network Ten Pty Limited, acknowledging the plaintiff's success in establishing the breach of the non-disparagement clause. The Court's decision highlighted the importance of the practical outcome of litigation in determining the allocation of costs, even where the relief sought was not fully granted.