//
© 2026 Zoe. All rights reserved.
Zoe is a legal information platform. Always consult the Federal Register of Legislation for authoritative text.
[2026] NSWSC 1210
Supreme Court of NSW
2026-10-01
Schmidt AJ
Original judgment source is linked above.
Source: NSW Caselaw (www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au). Converted to plain text by ZoeLaw. Not the official version.
Medium Neutral Citation: THN Capital Funding Pty Ltd v Leffler (No 2) [2026] NSWSC 1210
Hearing dates: On the papers
Date of orders: 01 October 2026
Decision date: 01 October 2026
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Schmidt AJ
Decision: (1) Judgment for the Plaintiffs against the First and Second Defendants jointly and severally in the sum of $16,000,000.00.
(2) Pursuant to s 100 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), the First and Second Defendants jointly and severally pay pre-judgment interest on the amount in Order 1 in the sum of $3,759,539.73 calculated from 6 October 2023 to the date of judgment.
(3) The First and Second Defendants pay the Plaintiffs’ costs on the indemnity basis, as agreed or assessed.
Catchwords: COSTS — party/party — indemnity costs — where plaintiffs seek to enforce defendants’ guarantee given by an irrevocable authority — where defendants did not challenge plaintiffs’ proposed orders — indemnity costs ordered
Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), s 100
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), r 42.1
Cases Cited: THN Capital Funding Pty Ltd v Leffler [2026] NSWSC 1033
Category: Costs
Parties: THN Capital Funding Pty Ltd (First Plaintiff)
THN Capital Solutions Pty Ltd (Second Plaintiff)
Jonathan Pargan Leffler (First Defendant)
Goran Lovrinov (Second Defendant)
Representation: Counsel:
AL Oakes (Plaintiffs)
Solicitors:
Swaab (Plaintiffs)
Jonathan Pargan Leffler (self-represented)
File Number(s): 2023/333694
Publication restriction: Nil
In August 2026 I gave judgment in relation to a claim for a money order for $16 million which Mr Leffler unsuccessfully resisted: THN Capital Funding Pty Ltd v Leffler [2026] NSWSC 1033. Mr Lovrinov did not avail himself of the opportunity I was satisfied he was given, to meet the case which the plaintiffs successfully advanced. The parties were then directed to confer and file proposed orders, including as to costs, as well as submissions.
The defendants did not comply, but the plaintiffs filed orders they proposed, together with supporting submissions. The orders they sought were:
Judgment for the Plaintiffs against the First and Second Defendants jointly and severally in the sum of $16,000,000.00.
Pursuant to s 100 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), the First and Second Defendants jointly and severally pay pre-judgment interest on the amount in Order 1 in the sum of $3,759,539.73 calculated from 6 October 2023 to the date of judgment.
The First and Second Defendants pay the Plaintiffs’ costs on the indemnity basis, as agreed or assessed.
By email of 11 September 2026, a Ms Gray, who had earlier also communicated at various times on behalf of the defendants, advised that they did not consent to the proposed orders and that they intended to challenge the judgment and to seek an order staying enforcement of any judgment entered. But no response was provided to the submissions which the plaintiffs had advanced.
An indemnity costs order had been sought in the plaintiffs’ statement of claim. The usual costs order under the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) is that costs follow the event, which would be an order in favour of the plaintiffs: r 42.1. The plaintiffs sought a departure from that order, relying on the parties’ earlier agreement.
The plaintiffs relied on the terms of the Irrevocable Authority, on which the disputed claim turned, by which the defendants had provided a guarantee of the due and punctual payment of all money “under or in connection with the Transaction Documents, including principal up to a limit of $16,000,000 plus interest, fees, costs, and expenses”.
Clause 8(b) of the Irrevocable Authority also provided that:
“8. The Debtor and the Guarantor
…
(b) unconditionally indemnify the Creditor for all losses, liabilities, costs and expenses (including without limitation) legal costs on an indemnity basis arising under or in connection with a breach of any warranty, representation or undertaking”
The “Transaction Documents” were identified to be “[t]he Forbearance Deed and each of the facilities and securities as defined in it”: recital B. They included a factoring facility agreement which also included an agreement in relation to recovery of costs incurred in connection with the “exercise, protection or enforcement of our rights under a Relevant Document”: cl 29.1(c).
The defendants having not advanced anything to challenge the basis on which the orders which the plaintiffs sought were based, I am satisfied that justice requires that they be made. They reflecting both the outcome of the proceedings and what the parties had earlier agreed in relation to costs incurred, if the plaintiffs had to enforce the guarantee which the defendants gave by the Irrevocable Authority.
Mr Leffler unsuccessfully resisted the case the plaintiffs advanced at the hearing in circumstances explained in the August judgment and Mr Lovrinov, having been given a fair opportunity to meet their case, did not avail himself of that opportunity, as I also there explained. Nothing dealt with in that judgement provides a proper basis for refusing to make the indemnity costs order which I am satisfied the parties’ agreement contemplates.
Ms Gray’s advice that the defendants intend to challenge the judgment is not a just basis for refusing to make the orders which they also had a fair opportunity to address. To the contrary, that they also did not avail themselves of that opportunity, even to challenge the calculation of interest or the basis on which an indemnity costs order was sought, supports the making of the orders the plaintiffs sought.
In all the circumstances, I am thus satisfied that the orders which the plaintiffs sought cannot justly be refused.
If an application for a stay is to be pursued, it must be made in the usual way, by motion supported by an affidavit.
For these reasons I now order that:
Judgment for the Plaintiffs against the First and Second Defendants jointly and severally in the sum of $16,000,000.00.
Pursuant to s 100 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), the First and Second Defendants jointly and severally pay pre-judgment interest on the amount in Order 1 in the sum of $3,759,539.73 calculated from 6 October 2023 to the date of judgment.
The First and Second Defendants pay the Plaintiffs’ costs on the indemnity basis, as agreed or assessed.
**********
THN Capital Funding Pty Ltd
Leffler (No 2)
[2026] NSWSC 1033