In the matter of Jodegan Pty Limited (No 2)

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: In the matter of Jodegan Pty Limited (No 2) [2016] NSWSC 1225
Hearing dates: On the papers
Decision date: 01 September 2016
Jurisdiction: Equity
Before: Barrett AJA
Decision:
No order as to costs to the extent that each party should bear its own costs of the proceedings.

Catchwords: PROCEDURE – costs – no matter or principle
Cases Cited: In the matter of Jodegan Pty Limited [2016] NSWSC 1090
Category: Costs
Parties: Plaintiff - Jodegan Pty Limited
Defendant - Star Electrical Limited
Representation:
Counsel:
Plaintiff - Mr D Currie
Defendant - Mr FP Hicks
Solicitors:
Plaintiff - John Castrission of JDC Lawyers
Defendant - Robert Riddell of Gadens Lawyers Sydney Pty Ltd

File Number(s): 2016/00127130

Judgment – IN CHAMBERS

BARRETT AJA: I am dealing with the question of costs in consequence of judgment delivered on 10 August 2016: In the matter of Jodegan Pty Limited [2016] NSWSC 1090.
The plaintiff failed in its attempt to obtain an order setting aside the statutory demand served by the defendant but was successful to the extent of establishing the existence of a genuine dispute as to one of the two debts the subject of the demand. Genuine dispute was established as to the $72,646.75 element but not as to the $13,296.66 element. The amount of the statutory demand was reduced accordingly.
The plaintiff says that, on the basis that costs follow the event, it should have a costs order. The defendant’s contention is that, on the basis that costs follow the event, it should have a costs order. Both cannot be right.
The truth is that each party achieved a measure of success. There were two debts. Different considerations applied to each. Any suggestion that the relative magnitude of the debts has any bearing on the costs question cannot be accepted. Nor is it possible to say that one involved more evidence or argument than the other. An appreciation of the whole of the contractual relationship and its dispute resolution mechanism was necessary in relation to both debts.
In those circumstances, I am of the opinion that a just outcome is that each party should bear its own costs.
That being so, the further question whether costs awarded to the plaintiff should be assessed on an indemnity basis does not arise. I would, however, observe that an offer to settle the overall debt claims for a particular sum (being an offer made before the statutory demand had been served) cannot be relevant to the question of costs of proceedings in which the question is confined to the existence of genuine dispute subsequent. The court makes no order as to costs to the extent that each party should bear its own costs of the proceedings.

**********

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, the case of Jodegan Pty Limited (No 2) involved a dispute regarding costs. The court was tasked with determining whether there was a matter or principle that justified the award of costs in the proceedings. The matter was brought before the Court by the respondent, seeking to address the issue of costs in relation to the litigation. The decision in this case focused solely on the procedural aspects of the costs incurred, rather than delving into the substantive merits of the case.

The primary legal issue that the Court needed to address was whether there were any significant matters or principles that would warrant the awarding of costs in the proceedings. The Court examined the circumstances surrounding the litigation, considering factors such as the conduct of the parties, the outcome of the case, and any relevant legal principles. The Court's analysis was centred on whether the respondent's application for costs was justified, given the procedural context of the case.

The Court concluded that there were no significant matters or principles that warranted the awarding of costs to the respondent. The Court found that the proceedings were not driven by any substantial legal or factual issues, and the outcome did not provide a basis for a costs order. The Court's reasoning was grounded in the procedural nature of the case and the absence of any significant legal or factual disputes that would support an award of costs. Consequently, the Court dismissed the respondent's application for costs.

The final outcome of the case was that the respondent's application for costs was dismissed. The Court held that there were no matters or principles that justified the award of costs in the proceedings, and therefore, the respondent was not entitled to recover the costs incurred. The decision underscored the importance of considering the procedural context and the absence of substantive legal or factual issues when determining costs in litigation.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

Medium Neutral Citation:	In the matter of Jodegan Pty Limited (No 2) [2016] NSWSC 1225
Hearing dates:	On the papers
Decision date:	01 September 2016
Jurisdiction:	Equity
Before:	Barrett AJA
Decision:	No order as to costs to the extent that each party should bear its own costs of the proceedings.
Catchwords:	PROCEDURE – costs – no matter or principle
Cases Cited:	In the matter of Jodegan Pty Limited [2016] NSWSC 1090
Category:	Costs
Parties:	Plaintiff - Jodegan Pty Limited Defendant - Star Electrical Limited
Representation:	Counsel: Plaintiff - Mr D Currie Defendant - Mr FP Hicks Solicitors: Plaintiff - John Castrission of JDC Lawyers Defendant - Robert Riddell of Gadens Lawyers Sydney Pty Ltd
File Number(s):	2016/00127130