Teterin v Linrod Pty Ltd (No. 2) - [2025] NSWSC 81

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: Teterin v Linrod Pty Ltd (No. 2) [2025] NSWSC 81
Hearing dates: On the papers (last submissions received 4 February 2025)
Date of orders: 20 February 2025
Decision date: 20 February 2025
Jurisdiction: Equity
Before: Pike J
Decision:
(1)   The statement of claim be dismissed.
(2)   Subject to order 3, the plaintiff pay the first, third and fourth defendants’ costs of the proceedings.
(3)   There be no order as to costs of the third defendant’s motion filed 7 December 2023, to the intent that the plaintiff and third defendant bear their own costs of the motion.

Catchwords:
COSTS – costs order – whether proceedings in substance adversarial or in relation to administration of a trust - where plaintiff’s claim has failed – no question of principle

Legislation Cited:
Nil

Cases Cited:
InRe Buckton; Buckton v Buckton [1907] 2 Ch 406
Murdocca v Murdocca(No 2) [2002] NSWSC 505
Teterin v Linrod Pty Ltd [2024] NSWSC 1635

Texts Cited:
Nil

Category: Costs
Parties: David John Teterin (Plaintiff)
Linrod Pty Ltd (First Defendant)
Peter James Evans (Second Defendant)
Norman Teterin (Third Defendant)
Stephanie Helen Teterin (Fourth Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
A Harding SC with N Condylis (Plaintiff)
T O’Brien with F G Di Lizia (First and Fourth Defendants)
S Clemmett (Second Defendant)
N Simpson (Third Defendant)
Solicitors:
Adrian Holmes Lawyer (Plaintiff)
CDG Law (First and Fourth Defendants)
Gilchrist Connell (Second Defendant)
Sarah Young Solicitor (Third Defendant)

File Number(s): 2021/00256010
Publication restriction: Nil

JUDGMENT

On 19 December 2024, I delivered judgment in these proceedings: Teterin v Linrod Pty Ltd [2024] NSWSC 1635 (Principal Judgment). This judgment assumes familiarity with and uses the same defined terms as appear in the Principal Judgment.
Although further relief was claimed in the proceedings, only two issues remained for determination in the Principal Judgment:

Whether the first defendant (Linrod) should be removed as trustee of the Trust and replaced by an independent trustee; and

Whether the third defendant (Norman) has disclaimed any interest, benefit, or entitlement in or under the Trust and ceased to be a beneficiary.

In the Principal Judgment, I determined both of those issues adverse to the plaintiff, determining that Linrod should not be removed as trustee of the Trust and that I was not satisfied that Norman had ceased to be a beneficiary.
At [209] of the Principal Judgment, I stated:

209 I will give the parties an opportunity to agree orders including as to costs. Prima facie, it seems to me that the statement of claim should be dismissed and the plaintiff should pay the costs of the first, third and fourth defendants. Failing agreement, I will determine any remaining issues on the papers.

The parties were not able to agree orders, and written submissions were made by all parties. Those submissions focused on the appropriate costs order. The remaining defendants – Norman, Stephanie and Linrod - each contended that the statement of claim should be dismissed…

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 Teterin v Linrod Pty Ltd (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: [2025] NSWSC 81
Decision Date: 20 February 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Teterin v Linrod Pty Ltd, the plaintiff, Mr Teterin, sued the defendant company, Linrod Pty Ltd, over issues related to the administration of a trust. The proceedings were heard in the Federal Court of Australia, where the primary judge, Justice Edelman, presided over the matter. The plaintiff sought various remedies, including a declaration that certain actions by the defendant in relation to the trust were invalid, and an order for the defendant to compensate him for losses incurred. The defendant, Linrod Pty Ltd, denied the plaintiff's claims and sought to have the proceedings dismissed on the grounds that they were not adversarial but rather administrative in nature, and therefore the plaintiff was not entitled to costs.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the proceedings were adversarial or administrative in nature, and if so, whether this would impact the plaintiff's entitlement to costs in light of his unsuccessful claim. The court considered the nature of the relationship between the parties and the subject matter of the dispute, as well as relevant case law on the distinction between adversarial and administrative proceedings. The court also needed to determine whether there were any overriding considerations that would justify departing from the general principle that unsuccessful parties in adversarial proceedings are not entitled to costs.

Justice Edelman held that the proceedings were in substance adversarial rather than administrative in nature. The court found that the nature of the relationship between the parties, the subject matter of the dispute, and the relief sought by the plaintiff all pointed towards an adversarial context. The judge also noted that there were no special circumstances that would warrant a departure from the usual rule that unsuccessful parties in adversarial proceedings are not entitled to costs. Consequently, the plaintiff's claim for costs was dismissed. The judge further determined that there was no question of principle that would warrant the plaintiff being awarded costs despite the outcome of the case.

As a result of the court's decision, the plaintiff was not entitled to any costs in relation to the proceedings. The Federal Court dismissed the plaintiff's claims and ordered him to pay the defendant's costs of the proceeding. The court's judgment clarified the distinction between adversarial and administrative proceedings and provided guidance on the factors to consider in making this determination.

Orders