Smiths Detection (Australia) Pty Ltd v Basham (Costs) - [2020] NSWSC 758

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Smiths Detection (Australia) Pty Ltd v Basham (Costs) [2020] NSWSC 758
Hearing dates: On the papers
Date of orders: 29 May 2020
Decision date: 29 May 2020
Jurisdiction: Equity
Before: Rein J
Decision:
See [19], [22] and [27].

Catchwords:
COSTS – Party/Party – Costs orders in interlocutory proceedings – Second to fourth defendants (“corporate defendants”), having successfully defended the plaintiff’s motion, sought an order that the plaintiff pay the corporate defendants’ costs on the basis that costs should follow the event (the “event” being dismissal of the plaintiff’s motion) – Plaintiff argued that the costs of the motion should be costs in the cause of the overall proceedings, as the motion was not sufficiently separate from the substantive proceedings to warrant an interlocutory costs order, and the plaintiff may yet be successful against the corporate defendants at a final hearing – Held: the plaintiff should pay the corporate defendants’ costs of the motion, as the motion was a discrete issue about striking out the corporate defendants’ defences and their success on that issue stands even if they end up losing the overall proceedings; by their victory, the corporate defendants won the right to maintain their defences at trial. The corporate defendants’ costs of the motion were held to include the costs of a short hearing in the Equity Duty List on 1 November 2019 dealing with a particular prayer of the plaintiff’s motion.

COSTS – Party/Party – Timing – Costs payable forthwith – The corporate defendants sought an order that their costs of defending the plaintiff’s motion should be payable forthwith, which order the plaintiff opposed – Held: the Court made an order that the corporate defendants’ costs of the motion are payable by the plaintiff forthwith, on the basis of the discrete nature of the motion and due to the lack of proximity to a final hearing.
COSTS – Party/Party – Exceptions to general rule that costs follow the event – Misconduct of a party – The first defendant, having successfully defended the plaintiff’s strike out motion, sought an order for costs against the plaintiff – The plaintiff argued that it brought its motion because the first defendant destroyed or attempted to destroy documents in defiance of a court order, which constitutes disentitling conduct with respect to costs irrespective of the first defendant’s success in defending the motion – Held: the plaintiff did not establish at the hearing of the motion that the first defendant succeeded in deleting the documents, only that he attempted to delete them. The Court exercised its discretion by ordering that, although the first defendant succeeded in resisting the plaintiff’s motion, his costs of the motion are to be his costs in the cause of the substantive proceedings yet to be heard.
Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW)
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Arian v Nguyen [2001] NSWCA 5; (2001) 33 MVR 37
Ausino International Pty Ltd v Apex Sports Pty Ltd…

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 Smiths Detection (Australia) Pty Ltd v Basham (Costs) 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: [2020] NSWSC 758
Decision Date: 29 May 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, Smiths Detection (Australia) Pty Ltd brought proceedings against Basham and others. The second to fourth defendants, referred to as the corporate defendants, successfully defended the plaintiff’s motion. They sought an order that the plaintiff pay their costs of the motion on the basis that costs should follow the event, which in this case was the dismissal of the plaintiff’s motion. The plaintiff argued that the costs of the motion should be costs in the cause of the overall proceedings as the motion was not sufficiently separate from the substantive proceedings to warrant an interlocutory costs order, and the plaintiff may yet be successful against the corporate defendants at a final hearing.

The court held that the plaintiff should pay the corporate defendants’ costs of the motion, as the motion was a discrete issue about striking out the corporate defendants’ defences and their success on that issue stands even if they end up losing the overall proceedings. The court found that by their victory, the corporate defendants won the right to maintain their defences at trial. The costs of the motion were held to include the costs of a short hearing in the Equity Duty List on 1 November 2019 dealing with a particular prayer of the plaintiff’s motion. Additionally, the court made an order that the corporate defendants’ costs of the motion are payable by the plaintiff forthwith, on the basis of the discrete nature of the motion and due to the lack of proximity to a final hearing.

The first defendant also sought an order for costs against the plaintiff, having successfully defended the plaintiff’s strike out motion. The plaintiff argued that it brought its motion because the first defendant destroyed or attempted to destroy documents in defiance of a court order, which constitutes disentitling conduct with respect to costs irrespective of the first defendant’s success in defending the motion. However, the court held that the plaintiff did not establish at the hearing of the motion that the first defendant succeeded in deleting the documents, only that he attempted to delete them. The court exercised its discretion by ordering that, although the first defendant succeeded in resisting the plaintiff’s motion, his costs of the motion are to be his costs in the cause of the substantive proceedings yet to be heard.

Orders