Scenic Tours Pty Ltd v Moore (No 2)

Link copied
Case Copied 5 min read

Court of Appeal


Supreme Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Scenic Tours Pty Ltd v Moore (No 2) [2023] NSWCA 101
Hearing dates: On the papers
Date of orders: 18 May 2023
Decision date: 18 May 2023
Before: Ward P, Kirk JA, Griffiths AJA
Decision:

1. The appeal be allowed in part.

2. Set aside Orders 3 to 5 and 13 to 18 made on 24 June 2022.

3. Set aside Order 9(b) made on 24 June 2022.

4. Set aside Order 6 made on 26 August 2022.

5. The Common Questions and Answers are varied in accordance with the document entitled “Agreed Common Questions & Answers” dated 4 May 2023, a copy of which is annexed to these reasons for judgment.

6. Set aside Order 5 made on 26 August 2022 and in lieu thereof order that:

(a) the appellant pay the respondent’s costs of the proceedings below up to 30 April 2020 as agreed or assessed;
(b) the appellant pay 90% of the respondent’s costs of the proceedings from 1 May 2020 to 26 August 2022 as agreed or assessed.

7. The appellant pay 90% of the respondent’s costs of the application for leave to appeal and of the appeal.

Catchwords:

COSTS – costs on appeal – where appeal allowed in part – apportionment of costs where mixed outcome on appeal – significance of successful ground of appeal – costs at first instance – re-exercise of costs discretion where different outcome on appeal

Cases Cited:

Scenic Tours Pty Ltd v Moore [2023] NSWCA 74

Category:Costs
Parties: Scenic Tours Pty Ltd (Appellant)
David Moore (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
D Weinberger (Appellant)
J Hogan-Doran/ N Li (Respondent)

Solicitors:
SWS Lawyers (Appellant)
Somerville Legal (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2022/00136307
2022/00140758
Publication restriction: Nil
 Decision under appeal 
Court or tribunal:
Supreme Court of NSW
Jurisdiction:
Common Law
Citation:

[2022] NSWSC 270

Date of Decision:
14 April 2022
Before:
Garling J
File Number(s):
2014/00223271

JUDGMENT

  1. THE COURT: On 20 April 2023, the Court published reasons for judgment in Scenic Tours Pty Ltd v Moore [2023] NSWCA 74. We will assume familiarity with those reasons for judgment and, for convenience, we will use the same abbreviations. In brief, the appeal was dismissed save in relation to the award of damages for airfares to a sub-set of group members.

  2. The parties were ordered to file and serve submissions regarding the terms of final orders. This has occurred. The parties were informed that final orders would be made on the papers.

  3. The parties agree to the making of what will be orders 1 to 5, which include modifications to the “Common Questions and Answers”. They disagree, however, on both the costs of the appeal and of the hearing below. The disagreement relates not to the relevant principles (which are well settled), but to the apportionment of costs to reflect the appellant’s success on the issue of Airfares Damages.

Determination

  1. As to the costs of the appeal, the appellant contended that it should be ordered to…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Scenic Tours Pty Ltd v Moore (No 2) 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
[2023] NSWCA 101
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Scenic Tours Pty Ltd appealed to the Court of Appeal of New South Wales against orders made by the primary judge in proceedings brought by Mr Moore. The dispute concerned the interpretation and application of certain provisions within a franchise agreement.

The Court of Appeal was required to determine the extent to which the primary judge's decision should be upheld or varied, and consequently, how the costs of both the proceedings at first instance and the appeal should be apportioned between the parties, given the partial success of the appeal.

The Court allowed the appeal in part, setting aside several of the orders made at first instance and varying the common questions and answers agreed by the parties. In exercising its discretion regarding costs, the Court ordered that the appellant pay the respondent's costs of the proceedings below up to 30 April 2020, and 90% of the respondent's costs from 1 May 2020 to 26 August 2022. Furthermore, the appellant was ordered to pay 90% of the respondent's costs of the application for leave to appeal and the appeal itself.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal be allowed in part.

2. Set aside Orders 3 to 5 and 13 to 18 made on 24 June 2022.

3. Set aside Order 9(b) made on 24 June 2022.

4. Set aside Order 6 made on 26 August 2022.

5. The Common Questions and Answers are varied in accordance with the document entitled “Agreed Common Questions & Answers” dated 4 May 2023, a copy of which is annexed to these reasons for judgment.

6. Set aside Order 5 made on 26 August 2022 and in lieu thereof order that:

(a) the appellant pay the respondent’s costs of the proceedings below up to 30 April 2020 as agreed or assessed;

(b) the appellant pay 90% of the respondent’s costs of the proceedings from 1 May 2020 to 26 August 2022 as agreed or assessed.

7. The appellant pay 90% of the respondent’s costs of the application for leave to appeal and of the appeal.

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.