Par Recycling Services Pty Ltd v United Resource Management Pty Ltd (No 2) [2022] NSWSC 1405

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Par Recycling Services Pty Ltd v United Resource Management Pty Ltd (No 2) [2022] NSWSC 1405 Hearing dates: 13 October 2022 Date of orders: 17 October 2022 Decision date: 17 October 2022 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Schmidt AJ Decision: (1) The parties will be referred to as follows: (a) PAR, being the plaintiff on the Statement of Claim, Cross-Defendant on the First Cross-Claim, and Cross-Claimant on the Second Cross-Claim; (b) URM, being the First Defendant on the Statement of Claim, First Cross-Claimant on the First Cross-Claim, and First Cross-Defendant on the Second Cross-Claim; (c) URME, being the Second Cross-Claimant on the First Cross-Claim, and Third Cross-Defendant on the Second Cross-Claim; and (d) Johnston, being the Second Defendant on the Statement of Claim, and Second Cross-Defendant on the Second Cross-Claim (2) Judgment for PAR on the statement of claim and the second cross-claim for: (a) $796,852.49, including interest of $109,499.89 to 20 September 2022, as against URM and Johnston; and (b) $605,277.06, including interest of $101,611.26 to 20 September 2022, as against URM and Johnston. (3) The First Cross-Claim is dismissed. (4) URM, Johnston, and URME pay PAR's costs on the Statement of Claim, First Cross-Claim and Second Cross-Claim: (a) on the ordinary basis to and including 19 August 2022; (b) on an indemnity basis from and including 20 August 2022. Catchwords: COSTS — Party/Party — where there is dispute over proposed costs orders — whether a declaration that a contract was void ab initio should be made — where proposed declaration would not result in further compensation or damages — declaration not made COSTS — Party/Party — Exceptions to general rule that costs follow the event — Calderbank offer — where genuine offer of compromise was made — whether unreasonable not to accept — indemnity costs ordered against both defendants CONTRACTS— whether money orders should be made against both first and second defendants — alleged misleading and deceptive conduct established against both defendants — orders made against both defendants Legislation Cited: Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth), Sch 2 Australian Consumer Law, ss 237, 242, 243 Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), ss 56, 98 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) Cases Cited: Abdi v Abdi (No 2) [2022] NSWSC 582 Elite Protective Personnel Pty Ltd v Salmon [2007] NSWCA 322 Oshlack v Richmond River Council (1998) 193 CLR 72; [1998] HCA 11 Par Recycling Services Pty Ltd v United Resource Management Pty Ltd [2022] NSWSC 1269 Category: Costs Parties: Par Recycling Services Pty Ltd (Plaintiff) United Resource Management Pty Ltd (First Defendant) Anthony Charles Johnston (Second Defendant) Representation: Counsel: Mr J Gooley (Plaintiff) Mr J Giles (First Defendant) Mr J McLeod (First Defendant) Solicitors: RH Law (Plaintiff) Harris & Harris (First and Second Defendants) File Number(s): 2019/256104