In the matter of AT Air Group Pty Limited (in liquidation) v Dieter Siewert [2013] NSWSC 1309

In the matter of AT Air Group Pty Limited (in liquidation) v Dieter Siewert [2013] NSWSC 1309

Because the interlocutory application produced a mixed result, with the plaintiffs succeeding on approval of the assignment and the defendants succeeding on the release from undertaking issue, and because the parties had reached a fair compromise position on 14 February 2013, it was not consistent with s 56 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) to wholly reagitate costs. The appropriate order was to adopt the clarified compromise and award the first and second defendants limited costs against Aquatic Air Pty Limited.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 April 2013
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Applications / Costs Determination Following Interlocutory Application Concerning Release From Undertaking and Approval Under S 477(2 B) of the Corporations Act 2001 (cth)
Outcome
Orders made for Aquatic Air Pty Limited to pay specified costs of the first and second defendants as agreed or as assessed, with no order as to costs for the appearances on 14 February 2013 or 5 April 2013.
Legal Topics
['costs' 'costs Follow the Event' 'costs of Issues' 'liquidator Approval to Enter Deed of Assignment' 'release From Undertaking']
['civil Procedure' 'corporations'] ['costs' 'costs Follow the Event' 'costs of Issues' 'liquidator Approval to Enter Deed of Assignment' 'release From Undertaking']

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

Interlocutory Applications / Costs Determination Following Interlocutory Application Concerning Release From Undertaking and Approval Under S 477(2 B) of the Corporations Act 2001 (cth)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Court should reopen or reconsider the question of costs beyond the position raised on 14 February 2013.' 'Whether costs should follow the event where the parties had mixed success on the interlocutory application.' 'Whether limited costs should be ordered in favour of the first and second defendants against Aquatic Air Pty Limited.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because the interlocutory application produced a mixed result, with the plaintiffs succeeding on approval of the assignment and the defendants succeeding on the release from undertaking issue, and because the parties had reached a fair compromise position on 14 February 2013, it was not consistent with s 56 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) to wholly reagitate costs. The appropriate order was to adopt the clarified compromise and award the first and second defendants limited costs against Aquatic Air Pty Limited.

Court Disposition

Orders made for Aquatic Air Pty Limited to pay specified costs of the first and second defendants as agreed or as assessed, with no order as to costs for the appearances on 14 February 2013 or 5 April 2013.

Orders

  • ["Aquatic Air Pty Limited pay the costs of the first and second defendants of appearing on 30 November 2012, counsel's preparation of written submissions for that appearance, and the preparation of an affidavit of Aaron Johnson of 9 November 2012, as agreed or as assessed." 'There be no order as to costs as to the...