Salmon v Albarran (No 2)

Case [2025] NSWCA 115


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

Salmon v Albarran [2024] NSWCA 3

Salmon v Albarran [2025] NSWCA 42

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:
M Elliott SC and N Simone (Applicants on motion)
O Salmon (solicitor), (First and Second Respondents on motion)

Solicitors:
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:

[2023] NSWSC 1238

Date of Decision:
19 October 2023
Before:
Nixon J
File Number(s):
2016/373218

JUDGMENT

  1. 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

Details
AGLC
Salmon v Albarran (No 2) [2025] NSWCA 115
Case
[2025] NSWCA 115
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Salmon v Albarran (No 2)*, the New South Wales Court of Appeal considered an application for a gross sum assessment of costs. The dispute arose from an appeal where the appellant was unsuccessful and was unlikely to be able to meet the costs incurred by the respondents. The respondents sought a gross sum assessment of their costs, arguing that the appellant's conduct had increased the costs of the appeal.

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.