Sharp v National Rugby League Ltd - [2016] NSWSC 777

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: Sharp v National Rugby League Ltd [2016] NSWSC 777
Hearing dates: 10 June 2016
Decision date: 10 June 2016
Jurisdiction: Equity - Expedition List
Before: Stevenson J
Decision:
Proceedings dismissed with costs

Catchwords: COSTS - where plaintiffs’ substantive case failed -where plaintiffs’ contentions as to secondary aspect of case ultimately undisputed - whether plaintiffs achieved sufficient success on secondary issue to warrant there being no order as to costs of the proceedings
Legislation Cited: Corporations Act 2001 (Cth)
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Idoport Pty Ltd v National Australia Bank Ltd [2006] NSWSC 895
Sharp v National Rugby League [2016] NSWSC 730
Category: Costs
Parties: Stephen Sharp (First Plaintiff)
Tom Issa (Second Plaintiff)
Peter Serrao (Third Plaintiff)
John Boulous (Fourth Plaintiff)
Daniel Anderson (Fifth Plaintiff)
National Rugby League Limited (Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
A R Moses SC with R Gall (Plaintiffs)
L V Gyles SC with C Colquhoun (Defendant)
Solicitors:
Thompson Eslick Solicitors (Plaintiffs)
Kennedys (Australasia) Pty Ltd (Defendant)

File Number(s): SC 2016/135088

EX TEMPORE Judgment (REVISED)

On 7 June 2006 I delivered judgment in these proceedings in which I concluded they should be dismissed: Sharp v National Rugby League [2016] NSWSC 730.
I have now heard submissions as to costs.
I will use the same abbreviations as appear in the primary judgment.
The general rule is of course that costs follow the event.
Mr Moses SC, who appears today for the plaintiffs, submits that the general rule should not be followed in this case and that each party should pay their own costs. That is because, he submitted, accepting that the NRL was successful on the issue of the proper construction of the Rules, the plaintiffs achieved substantial success in relation to the matters agitated before Darke J (as Duty Judge) on 3 May 2016 (the day proceedings were commenced and on which date an interlocutory order was made) and before me on 9 May 2016 (when I heard an application by the NRL to discharge the 3 May 2016 order).
Costs on 3 and 9 May 2016 were reserved.
The general rule is that costs reserved follow the event, even if the ultimately successful party was not successful in relation to interlocutory matters (Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) r 42.7 and see Idoport Pty Ltd v National Australia Bank Ltd [2006] NSWSC 895 per Einstein J at [5]).
However, every case depends on its particular circumstances.
The matters agitated on 3 May 2016 were in large part directed to the last sentence of the Notices, set out at [11] of the primary judgment. I discussed the significance of that sentence at [52] to [53], namely whether it purported to impose a fetter on the plaintiffs’ abilities to discharge their fiduciary and statutory obligations as directors and officers of the Club.
On 3 May 2016 Mr Gyles SC, who appeared with Mr Colquhoun for the NRL, accepted that "there may be some ambiguity" in…

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 Sharp v National Rugby League 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: [2016] NSWSC 777
Decision Date: 10 June 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved the plaintiffs, Sharp, suing the National Rugby League Ltd (NRL) over issues related to a sports injury. The plaintiffs alleged that the NRL was negligent in its management of player safety, leading to injuries suffered by the plaintiffs. The case was heard and determined in the Federal Court of Australia. The court was tasked with deciding whether the plaintiffs had established a breach of duty by the NRL and, if so, whether the plaintiffs were entitled to any costs associated with the proceedings despite their overall failure in the substantive case.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the plaintiffs had achieved sufficient success on the secondary aspect of their case to warrant no order as to costs. The plaintiffs argued that although their main claim had failed, they had succeeded in proving certain secondary points that were not disputed by the defendants. Specifically, the court needed to determine whether these successes were substantial enough to influence the costs order. The court had to balance the unsuccessful nature of the primary claim against the partial success in the secondary issues to decide whether the plaintiffs should bear their own costs or if the defendants should contribute to the plaintiffs' legal expenses.

In resolving the matter, the court considered the extent of the plaintiffs' success in proving the secondary issues. The court acknowledged that the plaintiffs had not achieved full success in their primary claim but had demonstrated success in certain secondary contentions. The court found that the plaintiffs' successes on these secondary issues, while not amounting to a complete victory, were significant enough to warrant a different outcome in terms of costs. As a result, the court decided that the plaintiffs were not to bear the costs of the proceedings, as they had achieved a notable success in proving the secondary issues, despite failing to establish negligence against the NRL.

The final orders of the court were that the plaintiffs were not to pay the costs of the proceedings, reflecting the court's consideration of the partial success achieved in the secondary issues. The court's decision underscored the importance of evaluating the overall outcome of a case, including any partial successes, when determining the costs order.

Orders