Court of Appeal
Supreme Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Salmon v Albarran (No 2) [2025] NSWCA 115 Hearing dates: On the papers Decision date: 28 May 2025 Before: Ward ACJ; Leeming JA; Ball JA Decision: 1. Order that the costs of the First, Second, and Fourth to Eighth Respondents of the Appeal are assessed in the amount of $135,000.
2. Order that the amount of $35,000 held in Court as security for the costs of the First, Second, and Fourth to Eighth Respondents of the Appeal be released forthwith to the trust account of their solicitors and applied in partial discharge of the costs the subject of order 1.
3. In order to avoid doubt, order that the stay made by order 7 on 9 May 2024 is lifted.
Catchwords: COSTS – gross sum assessment – where unsuccessful appellant likely unable to meet costs – where costs of appeal increased by appellant’s conduct – appropriate to make gross sum assessment – consideration of amount of gross sum order
Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), s 60
Cases Cited: Gabrielle v Abood (No 4) [2023] NSWCA 100
Hamod v New South Wales [2011] NSWCA 375
Hartnett v Bell (No 2) (2023) 113 NSWLR 381;
Salmon v Albarran (No 2) [2024] NSWCA 99
Category: Costs Parties: Owen Salmon (First Appellant/First Respondent)
TCBS Group Holdings Pty Ltd (Second Appellant/Second Respondent)
Richard Albarran (First Respondent/First Applicant)
Geoffrey McDonald (Second Respondent/Second Applicant)
Steven John Brown (Third Respondent)
Robert Elliott, Drew Townsend, David Kenney, Luigino Malacco and Paul Leroy (Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh and Eighth Respondents; Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Seventh Applicants)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
M Elliott SC and N Simone (Applicants on motion)
O Salmon (solicitor), (First and Second Respondents on motion)
Hall & Wilcox (Applicants on motion)
File Number(s): 2023/356626 Publication restriction: Nil Decision under appeal
- Court or tribunal:
- Supreme Court of New South Wales
- Jurisdiction:
- Equity
- Citation:
- Date of Decision:
- 19 October 2023
- Before:
- Nixon J
- File Number(s):
- 2016/373218
JUDGMENT
-
THE COURT: This Court dismissed an appeal brought by Mr Salmon and his company TCBS Group Holdings Pty Ltd on 21 March 2025: Salmon v Albarran [2025] NSWCA 42 (the company played no separate role in the litigation and in what follows, references to Mr Salmon are references to both him and his company). Order 3 of the orders made on that day was an order: “Appellants to pay the respondents’ costs in this Court”. The respondents were separately represented, with one firm of solicitors retaining senior and junior counsel to appear for the first, second, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth respondents, and a separate firm retaining separate counsel to appear for the third respondent. By notice of motion filed on 4 April 2025, the first, second, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth respondents applied for a gross sum costs assessment of the order for costs insofar as it is in…
Continue reading Salmon v Albarran (No 2)
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Salmon v Albarran (No 2) [2025] NSWCA 115
- Case
- [2025] NSWCA 115
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Court was required to determine whether a gross sum assessment of costs was appropriate in the circumstances and, if so, what amount would be just and reasonable. The Court also had to consider the implications of the appellant's inability to pay the full costs and the impact of the appellant's conduct on the quantum of the costs order.
The Court reasoned that a gross sum assessment was appropriate given the appellant's likely inability to satisfy a standard assessment of costs and the fact that the appellant's conduct had demonstrably increased the costs of the appeal. Applying the principles governing gross sum assessments, the Court considered the factors relevant to determining a fair and reasonable amount, including the complexity of the proceedings and the work undertaken by the respondents' legal representatives. The Court ultimately ordered that the costs of the First, Second, and Fourth to Eighth Respondents be assessed in the amount of $135,000. The Court further ordered that $35,000 held as security for costs be released to the respondents' solicitors for partial discharge of this amount and lifted a previously imposed stay.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Order that the costs of the First, Second, and Fourth to Eighth Respondents of the Appeal are assessed in the amount of $135,000.
2. Order that the amount of $35,000 held in Court as security for the costs of the First, Second, and Fourth to Eighth Respondents of the Appeal be released forthwith to the trust account of their solicitors and applied in partial discharge of the costs the subject of order 1.
3. In order to avoid doubt, order that the stay made by order 7 on 9 May 2024 is lifted.
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.