Solutions People (Aust) Pty Limited v Stammers - [2020] NSWSC 1752

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Solutions People (Aust) Pty Limited v Stammers [2020] NSWSC 1752
Hearing dates: On the papers
Decision date: 07 December 2020
Jurisdiction: Equity
Before: Ward CJ in Eq
Decision:
1. Order that each party bear his or its own costs of the proceedings including of the interlocutory application before Lindsay J on 20 October 2020.

Catchwords:
COSTS — Party/Party — Where matter not heard on the merits – Calderbank offer

Legislation Cited:
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Calderbank v Calderbank [1975] 3 All ER 333; [1975] 3 WLR 586
Commonwealth of Australia v Gretton [2008] NSWCA 117
Freelancer International Pty Ltd v O’Kane [2019] NSWSC 159
Harkness v Harkness (No 2) [2012] NSWSC 35
Maitland Hospital v Fisher (No 2) (1992) 27 NSWLR 721
Miwa Pty Ltd v Siantan Properties Pty Ltd (No 2) [2011] NSWCA 344
Murrumbidgee Irrigation Ltd v M & H Acar Pty Ltd [2019] NSWSC 807
Nichols v NFS Agribusiness Pty Ltd (2018) 97 NSWLR 681; [2018] NSWCA 84
Re The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs of the Commonwealth of Australia; Ex Parte Lai Qin (1997) 186 CLR 622; [1997] HCA 6
Renton v Kelly [2018] NSWSC 1377

Category: Costs
Parties: Solutions People (Aust) Pty Limited (First Plaintiff)
Landscape Solutions Maintenance Pty Limited (Second Plaintiff)
Dominic Stammers (Defendant)
Representation: Solicitors:
Harris Freidman Lawyers (First and Second Plaintiffs)
McArdle Legal (Defendant)

File Number(s): 2020/00296301
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

HER HONOUR: Before me for determination on the papers, by consent of the parties, is the issue as to costs in respect of proceedings that have otherwise been determined by orders, made without admissions and by consent on 24 November 2020, pursuant to which the defendant (Dominic Stammers) is subject to certain restraints (the detail of which I set out below).
The only issue not determined on 24 November 2020 was as to the costs of the proceedings: the plaintiffs (Solutions People (Aust) Pty Limited and Landscape Solutions Maintenance Pty Limited) seek certain costs orders in their favour (that the defendant pay their costs of the proceedings or alternatively of their interlocutory application before Lindsay J, which were reserved on 20 October 2020); the defendant conversely seeks costs orders whereby each party bear its own costs up to a particular date and the plaintiffs pay his costs on and from that date on an indemnity basis.
Both parties filed brief written submissions on the issue as to costs. The plaintiffs rely on the affidavit of the general manager of the second plaintiff, Mr William Hamish Inglis sworn on 15 October 2020 (the Inglis Affidavit), in response to which the defendant has affirmed an affidavit on 23 October 2020 (the Stammers Affidavit). The defendant also relies on an affidavit affirmed on 30 November 2020 by his solicitor, Deirdre Catherine McEvoy (the McEvoy Affidavit).

Background

The background to the present application is drawn from the submissions and material on the Court file. I make no findings as…

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.

Continue reading Solutions People (Aust) Pty Limited v Stammers

Details

AGLC: Solutions People (Aust) Pty Limited v Stammers [2020] NSWSC 1752
Case: [2020] NSWSC 1752
Decision Date: 07 December 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Circuit Court, Solutions People (Aust) Pty Limited, a company engaged in recruitment services, sued Stammers, a former employee, for breach of contract, including alleged breaches of non-compete and non-solicitation clauses. Stammers counterclaimed for unpaid wages and entitlements. The case was dismissed before it reached a substantive hearing. Stammers made a Calderbank offer to settle the claim for a specified sum. The primary judge was tasked with determining the appropriate costs order in light of this offer and the case's procedural history. The judge considered the principles surrounding costs following a Calderbank offer and the circumstances of the case, including the absence of substantive hearings and the relatively minor nature of the dispute. The judge concluded that the offer was reasonable and accepted it, ordering Solutions People to pay the specified sum as a costs order.

The legal issues before the court were whether to accept the Calderbank offer as a basis for a costs order, and if so, how to quantify the costs. The court had to weigh the terms of the offer against the costs incurred by both parties and the overall fairness of the outcome. Additionally, the court needed to determine the appropriate amount of costs to be awarded to Stammers under the party/party costs regime, considering the procedural history and the fact that the matter did not proceed to a substantive hearing. The court's decision hinged on its assessment of the reasonableness of the Calderbank offer and its application of the relevant legal principles to the circumstances of the case.

Orders