Bateman v Newhaven Park Stud Ltd - Costs [2004] NSWSC 875

Bateman v Newhaven Park Stud Ltd - Costs [2004] NSWSC 875

Because the plaintiffs were unsuccessful on the interlocutory application determined on 29 June 2004, costs followed the event. The costs of the second named second defendant, the first and fourth named second defendants, and the third and fourth defendants were to be assessed and payable forthwith because those defendants had no effective role left to play, or were in substance in that position, and the unsuccessful interlocutory applications were sufficiently connected to the plaintiffs' principal objective of preventing the properties leaving the first defendant's ownership. The first defendant's costs were not payable forthwith because the proceedings remained ongoing against it and...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 September 2004
Procedural Posture
Costs Application in Shareholder Oppression Proceedings / After Dismissal of Two Interlocutory Injunction Applications, Determined on Written Submissions
Outcome
Plaintiffs ordered to pay defendants' costs of the interlocutory application determined on 29 June 2004; costs of certain defendants assessed and payable forthwith; no order for indemnity costs.
Legal Topics
['costs' 'indemnity Costs' 'costs Assessed and Payable Forthwith' 'interlocutory Injunctions' 'shareholder Oppression']
['civil Procedure' 'corporations Law'] ['costs' 'indemnity Costs' 'costs Assessed and Payable Forthwith' 'interlocutory Injunctions' 'shareholder Oppression']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Costs Application in Shareholder Oppression Proceedings / After Dismissal of Two Interlocutory Injunction Applications, Determined on Written Submissions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the plaintiffs should pay the defendants' costs of the interlocutory application determined on 29 June 2004." 'Whether costs awarded to certain defendants should be assessed and payable forthwith.' 'Whether costs awarded to the first defendant and the first and fourth named second defendants should be assessed on the indemnity basis.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because the plaintiffs were unsuccessful on the interlocutory application determined on 29 June 2004, costs followed the event. The costs of the second named second defendant, the first and fourth named second defendants, and the third and fourth defendants were to be assessed and payable forthwith because those defendants had no effective role left to play, or were in substance in that position, and the unsuccessful interlocutory applications were sufficiently connected to the plaintiffs' principal objective of preventing the properties leaving the first defendant's ownership. The first defendant's costs were not payable forthwith because the proceedings remained ongoing against it and...

Court Disposition

Plaintiffs ordered to pay defendants' costs of the interlocutory application determined on 29 June 2004; costs of certain defendants assessed and payable forthwith; no order for indemnity costs.

Orders

  • ["The plaintiffs pay the defendants' costs of the interlocutory application determined on 29 June 2004." 'The costs of the second named second defendant, the first and fourth named second defendants, the third defendant and the fourth defendant under both the order of 7 May 2004 and the order for costs of the 29...