JONSTAN PTY LIMITED & ORS v NICHOLSON & ORS - COSTS JUDGMENT [2003] NSWSC 500

Reported Decision : 58 NSWLR 223

New South Wales Supreme Court

CITATION : JONSTAN PTY LIMITED & ORS v NICHOLSON & ORS - COSTS JUDGMENT [2003] NSWSC 500 HEARING DATE(S) : 16 December 2002 JUDGMENT DATE : 13 June 2003

JUDGMENT OF : Hulme J at 1 DECISION : See paragraph 136

CATCHWORDS : Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1946, s5 - "Tort" - Trade Practices Act s52 - Fair Trading Act s42 - Costs - Offer of Compromise - multiple proceedings Plaintiffs: Jonstan Pty Ltd; Nelarc Pty Ltd; Prefix Pty Ltd; William Dixon Suthers; John James Wiley PARTIES : Defendants: Glenn William Nicholson; Robert William Norman; Gerrard John Sturgess; Stan Reilly; John Cunningham; Michael J Perkins t/as Hooton & Perkins; Cross Defendants: Jonstan Pty Ltd; Nelarc Pty Ltd; Prefix Pty Ltd; William Dixon Suthers; John James Wiley; Michael J Perkins; George Pashalis; Hunt Pacific Finance Pty Ltd; Stan Reilly; John Cunningham FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 20161 of 1998; 11657 of 1999 Plaintiffs: P Taylor SC COUNSEL : Mr Cunningham D5: P Glissan Mr Perkins D6: R Darke SC Hunt Pacific D7: I Roberts Plaintiffs: Deacons SOLICITORS : D5: Dibbs Barker Gosling D6: Ebsworth & Ebsworth D7: Minter Ellison

- 51 - IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COMMON LAW DIVISION

HULME J Friday, 13 June 2003

11657/99 & 20161/98 JONSTAN PTY LIMITED & 4 ORS v GLEN NICHOLSON & 5 ORS – 20161/98 JONSTAN PTY LIMITED AND 5 ORS v HUNT PACIFIC FINANCE PTY LIMITED - 11657/99 JUDGMENT ON COSTS 1 HULME J: In these proceedings I delivered my principal Reasons on 8 November 2002. On 16 December 2002 I made orders intended to reflect those Reasons and some orders for costs which were either non-contentious or seemed appropriate having regard to the conclusions at which I had arrived. I reserved my decision in respect of some claims for contribution and for orders for costs. These Reasons address those reserved issues. 2 Obviously some reference to matters canvassed in my principal Reasons and orders already made may be necessary if these Reasons are to be understandable. However, so far as possible I will avoid repetition of matters which can be ascertained by reference to those Reasons and orders. I should say also that during the course of argument on 16 December reference was made to a number of affidavits which, at least as far as the transcript reveals, were not formally read. No objection was taken to this course. 3 It is convenient to consider the issues here dealt with by reference to those paragraphs of the draft Short Minutes of Order which were the subject of debate on 16 December 2002 and in respect of which decision was reserved. The paragraphs referred to in my recorded orders of that day were 15, 16, 25, 26, 29, and 30 to 34. However the transcript of proceedings (page 39) indicates that I had intended to reserve also claims forming part of paragraphs 22 and 23 for Hunt and Mr Cunningham to indemnify Mr Perkins in respect of any liability he might have to the Plaintiffs for costs.