Caason Investments Pty Ltd v Cao (No 2) [2015] FCAFC 192

Caason Investments Pty Ltd v Cao (No 2) [2015] FCAFC 192

Because the appellants substantially succeeded in their interlocutory application to amend, costs should follow the event, but a 25% discount is warranted due to defects in the original pleading, thus the second to twentieth respondents are to pay 75% of appellants' costs of and incidental to the hearing before the primary judge.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 December 2015
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Costs Determination After Successful Appeal
Outcome
Order of primary judge set aside on costs; respondents to pay 75% of appellants' costs of and incidental to the interlocutory hearing below.
Legal Topics
['costs' 'amendment of Pleadings' 'market Based Causation' 'misleading and Deceptive Conduct']
['civil Procedure' 'corporations Law'] ['costs' 'amendment of Pleadings' 'market Based Causation' 'misleading and Deceptive Conduct']

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

Appeal / Costs Determination After Successful Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether costs should follow the event after successful appeal on amendment application' "Whether amendments made before appeal justified setting aside primary judge's costs order" 'Extent to which pleading defects warrant discount to costs']

Ratio Decidendi

Because the appellants substantially succeeded in their interlocutory application to amend, costs should follow the event, but a 25% discount is warranted due to defects in the original pleading, thus the second to twentieth respondents are to pay 75% of appellants' costs of and incidental to the hearing before the primary judge.

Court Disposition

Order of primary judge set aside on costs; respondents to pay 75% of appellants' costs of and incidental to the interlocutory hearing below.

Orders

  • ['Order 7 made by Farrell J on 6 March 2015 set aside.' "Second to twentieth respondents to pay 75% of appellants' costs of and incidental to the hearing before Farrell J of their Interlocutory Application filed on 21 March 2014 as taxed or agreed."]