‘Inconsistent, illogical, false’: Court blasts lawyer for response to overcharging claims

Redenbach has flagged a potential appeal.

Justice Elisabeth Peden’s judgment was critical of the principal lawyer for intentionally refusing to respond to “simple questions” and giving “self-serving evidence” or evidence considered false.

In a costs decision published last Thursday, 16 April, Justice Peden said the council, its general manager James Roncon, and chief financial officer Jay Nankivell should be awarded costs on an indemnity basis because of Redenbach’s “unreasonable conduct”.

Redenbach, the sole witness for himself and his firms, was not a credible witness and was found to have made denials, claims and defences that “ought never have been made”, Justice Peden said.

His version of conversations with Nankivell and Roncon around the costs agreements was found to be “completely incredible and false” and “unsubstantiated by documentary evidence”. Where there was documentary evidence, it was “inconsistent and illogical”.

Justice Peden said Redenbach should have known he and his firms had “no chance” of defending council’s claim, but pushed ahead on a case based on alleged conversations he “knew to be false”. The offering of false versions of conversations was “exceptional”.

VIEW ALL

The senior judge was critical of Redenbach unnecessarily prolonging the hearing by advancing “deliberately false defences or allegations of fact”, including making an allegation that Nankivell and Roncon had knowingly been evasive and reckless with evidence.

Redenbach also “consistently prevaricated in cross-examination and persisted with a version of events that was illogical and false”.

Even if these conclusions are found to be “erroneous”, Justice Peden said indemnity costs should be awarded because of the unaccepted offers made by council and by Roncon separately.

Court’s hefty costs orders

Within seven days, Redenbach and his firms were ordered to pay almost $2,894,000, including pre-judgment interest, into its trust account to be held there for council. About $2,643,000 is to be disbursed to council, with the rest held on trust until further order.

Redenbach and his firms were also ordered to pay council just over $2,467,000, including pre-judgment interest, in satisfaction of their statutory debt. A further $1 million held by the group in accordance with undertakings given to the court must also be paid to council.

Broken Hill Legal was ordered to pay council $130,000 in equitable compensation, plus pre-judgment interest of $28,878.

Redenbach, the Redenbach Group and Broken Hill Legal’s liabilities to reconstitute and disburse trust funds are reduced to the extent to which they satisfy the above judgment debts.

As for restitution of payments of rates higher than the tender rates, Passer Par is to pay council just under $931,000, and Redenbach Group is to pay about $71,000. Both include pre-judgment interest.

For damages over misleading or deceptive conduct, Passer Par is to pay just under $600,000, including pre-judgment interest, to council. This is to be reduced by the quantum of restitution that Passer Par or Redenbach Group makes to council in accordance with other orders.

Council and Jay Nankivell’s costs were fixed in the sum of $750,000, and James Roncon’s costs were fixed at $360,000. Both costs orders are to be paid on an indemnity basis.

A referee was appointed to report to the court on Redenbach Group’s entitlement to charge council $204,864 in respect of “time not previously charged”, and the quantum of sums charged by Passer Par to council in respect “of time in excess of that which their principals and employees performed billable work for council”.

The costs of the referee are to be paid equally between the parties.

Citation: Council of the City of Broken Hill v Redenbach Group Pty Ltd trading as Redenbach Legal (No 2) [2026] NSWSC 367.