G & H Australia Pty Ltd ACN 634 181 810 v Oladeinde

The plaintiff, G & H Australia Pty Ltd, commenced these proceedings on 7 November 2022 against its former employee, Mr Abidemi Oladeinde.

G & H operates a recruitment consultancy within the architectural engineering and construction industries.

Mr Oladeinde was employed by G & H as a recruitment consultant. His employment contract included a restraint of trade and a prohibition on the misuse of confidential information.

Mr Oladeinde’s employment ceased on 28 October 2022.

On 1 November 2022, G & H discovered LinkedIn messages sent and received by Mr Oladeinde which G & H alleged indicated that Mr Oladeinde had acted in breach of the restraints and prohibitions in his contract of employment.

On 7 November 2022, Meek J granted an injunction on an ex parte basis to enforce the restraint and prohibition.

On 9 November 2022, Mr Oladeinde appeared, by a solicitor, and did not challenge the injunction then in effect. In fact, at no stage did Mr Oladeinde challenge the injunction.

The proceedings were listed for hearing on 10 August 2023.

Immediately prior to the hearing, Mr Oladeinde consented to orders in terms of those sought in G & H’s summons.

I am now dealing with the question of costs.

As Mr Oladeinde has consented to the precise orders sought by G & H in its summons, and has at no stage during the proceedings challenged the making of those orders, the prima facie position is that costs follow the event [1] and that Mr Oladeinde should pay G & H’s costs of the proceedings.

In response to G & H’s submissions to that effect, Mr Oladeinde, who since April 2023 has not been represented in the proceedings, wrote:

The passages I have emphasised show that Mr Oladeinde accepts that G & H is entitled to its costs of the proceedings.

The factors that Mr Oladeinde sought to raise concerned “reasonableness of costs”, “financial hardship”, “good faith attempt at resolution” and “settlement negotiation”.

Mr Oladeinde seemed to think that the Court could, at this stage, engage in some kind of negotiation process with the parties as to the quantum of costs and other like matters. Were a costs order to be made, the reasonableness of the amount of those costs would in fact be dealt with by a costs assessor during the assessment process, assuming agreement could not be reached between the parties about that matter. The Court would have no further role to play.

Mr Oladeinde also provided what purports to be an affidavit made by him (although it is not in proper form) in which he has sought to agitate matters that, had orders not been made disposing of the proceedings, had potential relevance to the merits of G & H’s claim.

It is too late for Mr Oladeinde to raise such matters, the resolution of which would, in any event, involve the Court endeavouring to try a hypothetical case between the parties; a course that the Court will not follow. [2]

The appropriate order for the Court to make, as Mr Oladeinde appears to understand, is that he pay G & H’s costs of the proceedings.

My order is that the defendant pay the plaintiff’s costs of the proceedings, as assessed or agreed.