Snowside Pty Ltd as trustee for the Snowside Trust v Boart Longyear Ltd [2018] NSWCA 75

Snowside Pty Ltd as trustee for the Snowside Trust v Boart Longyear Ltd [2018] NSWCA 75

Leave to appeal refused because applicants failed to demonstrate that the discretion as to costs miscarried; primary judge properly adopted a broad-brush approach and found substantial overlap between expert evidence, with no question of principle, public importance, or injustice established.

Parties
First Applicant: Snowside Pty Ltd as trustee for the Snowside Trust; Second Applicant: Maurici Nominees Pty Ltd as trustee for AP Maurici & Associates Pty Ltd; First Respondent: Boart Longyear Ltd; Second Respondent: Boart Longyear Management Pty Ltd; Third Respondent: Boart Longyear Australia Pty Ltd; Fourth Respondent: Votraint No. 1609 Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 April 2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Costs, Schemes of Arrangement, Appeals, Exercise of Discretion
Corporations Law Civil Procedure Costs Schemes of Arrangement Appeals Exercise of Discretion

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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Snowside Pty Ltd as trustee for the Snowside Trust

First Applicant

Maurici Nominees Pty Ltd as trustee for AP Maurici & Associates Pty Ltd

Second Applicant

Boart Longyear Ltd

First Respondent

Boart Longyear Management Pty Ltd

Second Respondent

Boart Longyear Australia Pty Ltd

Third Respondent

Votraint No. 1609 Pty Ltd

Fourth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether primary judge erred in partial costs award by not ordering payment for applicants' preparation costs relating to expert evidence
  2. 2 Whether primary judge failed to consider applicants' knowledge of overlap between their expert evidence and First Pacific's evidence
  3. 3 Whether exclusion of entire preparation costs, rather than partial exclusion, was erroneous

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal refused because applicants failed to demonstrate that the discretion as to costs miscarried; primary judge properly adopted a broad-brush approach and found substantial overlap between expert evidence, with no question of principle, public importance, or injustice established.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Dismiss the application for leave to appeal from the judgment of Black J of 13 September 2017.
  • Order that the applicants pay the respondents' costs of the application.