//
© 2026 Zoe. All rights reserved.
Zoe is a legal information platform. Always consult the Federal Register of Legislation for authoritative text.
[2026] ACTSC 342
Supreme Court of the ACT
2026-09-10
Ainslie-Wallace AJ
Original judgment source is linked above.
Source: the ACT Courts (www.courts.act.gov.au). Converted to plain text by ZoeLaw. Not the official version.
SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
Case Title: Whats your addy Pty Ltd v Hedley (No 2) Citation: [2026] ACTSC 342 Hearing Date: On the papers Decision Date: 10 September 2026 Before: Ainslie-Wallace AJ Decision: (1) The Defendants pay the Plaintiffs’ costs of the application of 11 August 2026. Catchwords: CIVIL LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Costs – Injunction – interlocutory relief – where application was dismissed – principles of costs Cases Cited: Whats your addy Pty Ltd v Hedley [2026] ACTSC 305 Parties: Whats your addy Pty Ltd (First Plaintiff) Addy PM Pty Ltd (Second Plaintiff) Addy Sales Pty Ltd (Third Plaintiff) Ady Sales NSW Pty Ltd (Fourth Plaintiff) Ryan James Hedley (First Defendant) Mark Joseph William Edwards (Second Defendant) Move Property Pty Ltd (Third Defendant) Representation: Counsel J Nottle (Plaintiffs) Z Mason (Defendants) Solicitors Kamy Saeedi Law (Plaintiffs) Adero Law (Defendants) File Number: SC 344 of 2026 AINSLIE-WALLACE AJ: Introduction
On 5 August 2026 the Plaintiffs obtained ex parte injunctions restraining the Defendants from doing certain acts in relation to clients of a business called “Whats your addy” of which the Plaintiffs and Defendants had been directors or employees.
The matter returned to court on 11 August 2026 on which date the Defendants sought that the injunction be discharged. That application was refused and the terms of the injunctions made on 5 August 2026 modified. (Whats your addy Pty Ltd v Hedley [2026] ACTSC 305).
The Defendants seek their costs of the application made on 11 August 2026.
The principles concerning the award of costs are uncontentious. The making of a costs order is discretionary and while wide, the discretion must be exercised judicially and mindful of existing authority. The general rule is that a successful party is entitled to its costs paid by the unsuccessful party.
The issue here is whether the Defendants were successful. The Defendants argued that while the application was for the discharge of the injunctions earlier made and the argument on the 11 August was directed almost entirely to that aim, they had contended that, in the alternative, the orders made on 5 August could be varied. That being what happened, the Defendants argue that they achieved sufficient success to have their costs paid by the Plaintiff.
The foundation of the application that the injunctions be discharged was an assertion of material non-disclosure by the Plaintiffs in the ex parte injunction which would, perforce lead to the discharge of the injunctions in their entirety. As I have said, all of the arguments advanced by the Defendants on 11 August were to demonstrate the material non-disclosure. Further, it was argued that the Plaintiffs had sought the injunctions not in protection of the business but for a collateral purpose. That argument was not accepted and the allegation not made out.
But for one matter which was in fact asserted in error, material non-disclosure was not established. The injunctions were varied to reflect the position of one of the Defendants, who had been a director, and who owed no duty to the Plaintiffs following his resignation. However, the injunction that required that Defendant to produce any material in his possession concerning the Plaintiffs’ clients remained on foot.
The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendants were not successful in the sense outlined above and it is they who should pay the Plaintiffs’ costs.
I do not accept that the ultimate determination represented a success for the Defendants. Their alternate position, that the injunctions could be modified, was argued but faintly and was not the primary thrust of the application. Nor for that matter do I accept that the Plaintiffs were unsuccessful.
In all of the circumstances I decline to award costs to the Defendants. The Defendants should bear the costs of the application on 11 August 2026.
Orders
I certify that the preceding eleven [11] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of her Honour Acting Justice Ainslie-Wallace. Associate: Date: 10 September 2026
Whats your addy Pty Ltd
Hedley (No 2)
[2026] ACTSC 305