Uber BV & Anor v Howarth (No. 2) [2017] NSWSC 889

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Uber BV & Anor v Howarth (No. 2) [2017] NSWSC 889 Hearing dates: 31 May, 4 July 2017 Date of orders: 04 July 2017 Decision date: 04 July 2017 Jurisdiction: Equity Before: Slattery J Decision: Specified gross sum of $391,152.27 awarded instead of assessed costs. Catchwords: COSTS - specified gross sum instead of assessed costs – Civil Procedure Act s98(4)(c) – plaintiffs successful in contested proceedings for a mandatory injunction to restrain the commission of the tort of intimidation – defendant an undischarged bankrupt – defendant unlikely to be able to satisfy any order for costs of a costs assessment – whether a specified gross sum order should be made instead of an award of assessed costs – if so, what is the appropriate amount of such a specified gross sum - whether $391,152.27, which is approximately 60% of the costs the plaintiffs have incurred should be awarded instead of assessed costs – history of jurisdiction to make specified gross sum orders instead of assessed costs. Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005 s 98(4)(c) Passenger Transport Amendment (Taxis and Hire Cars) Regulation 2015 Supreme Court Rules 1970 Cases Cited: Australasian Performing Rights Assoc Ltd v Marlin [1999] FCA 1006 Beach Petroleum NL v Johnson (No. 2) (1995) 57 FCR 119 Edgar & Walker v Mead (1916) 23 CLR 29 Hadid v Lenfest Communications Inc [2000] FCA 628 Harrison v Schipp (2002) 54 NSWLR 738; [2002] NSWCA 213 Silva v Czarnikow Limited (1960) 104 SJ 369 Simone Starr-Diamond v Talus Diamond (No. 4) [2013] NSWSC 811 Uber BV & Anor v Howarth [2017] NSWSC 54 Willmott v Barber (1881) 17 Ch D 772 Category: Costs Parties: First Plaintiff: Uber BV Second Plaintiff: Uber Australia Pty Ltd Defendant: Russell Howarth Representation: Counsel: