The Checkout Pty Ltd v Cordell Jigsaw Productions Pty Ltd; Morrow v Cordell Jigsaw Productions Pty Ltd (No 14)

The case involved The Checkout Pty Ltd and Morrow against Cordell Jigsaw Productions Pty Ltd. The dispute centred around the rescinding of a Share Sale Agreement under section 237 of the Australian Consumer Law. The plaintiffs sought additional orders to clarify the parties' rights following the rescission, as the parties could not agree on the consequences of the rescission. The court had to determine whether further orders were necessary to give effect to the primary judgment and what those orders should be. Additionally, the case also dealt with issues related to costs in both commercial and defamation proceedings. The plaintiffs were substantially unsuccessful in the commercial proceedings, while the cross-claimants were substantially successful. The plaintiffs had recovered modest damages in the defamation proceedings. The court needed to decide if an order for indemnity costs should be made in either proceeding and whether section 40 of the Defamation Act 2005 (NSW) applied.

The court examined the necessity of additional orders to clarify the parties' rights post-rescission, considering the parties' inability to agree on the consequences of the rescission. It considered whether it was appropriate to make further orders to give effect to the primary judgment. In relation to the costs, the court assessed the outcomes of both the commercial and defamation proceedings. It had to decide on the appropriate cost orders for each proceeding, taking into account the substantial success of the cross-claimants in the commercial proceedings and the modest recovery of damages by the plaintiffs in the defamation proceedings. The court also needed to determine if the indemnity costs provision under section 40 of the Defamation Act 2005 (NSW) applied.

The court concluded that further orders were necessary to give effect to the primary judgment regarding the rescission of the Share Sale Agreement. It made specific orders to address the parties' rights following the rescission. Regarding costs, the court ordered that the plaintiffs pay the cross-claimants' costs of the commercial proceedings and that the cross-claimants pay the plaintiffs' costs of the defamation proceedings. The court found that the plaintiffs were substantially unsuccessful in the commercial proceedings and that the cross-claimants were substantially successful. It did not make an order for indemnity costs in either proceeding, determining that section 40 of the Defamation Act 2005 (NSW) was not enlivened in the circumstances of the case.

The court's final orders included the provision of specific rights clarification post-rescission, cost orders in both the commercial and defamation proceedings, and a determination that section 40 of the Defamation Act 2005 (NSW) did not apply for indemnity costs.