3 Property Group 13 Pty Ltd (in liq) v 3 Property Group 17 Pty Ltd (No 2) [2021] FCA 1371

3 Property Group 13 Pty Ltd (in liq) v 3 Property Group 17 Pty Ltd (No 2) [2021] FCA 1371

The appropriate costs order, following an interlocutory application to vacate an order extending the operation of a caveat, is that the applicants' costs be costs in the cause, not costs follow the event. This reflects the principles relating to interlocutory injunctions, recognising the preservation of the status quo pending final determination and the absence of disentitling conduct by respondents.

Parties
First Applicant: 3 Property Group 13 Pty Ltd (in liquidation) ACN 621 691 932; Second Applicant: Stephen John Hundy in his capacity as liquidator of 3 Property Group 13 Pty Ltd (in liquidation) ACN 621 691 932; First Respondent: 3 Property Group 17 Pty Ltd ACN 623 493 952; Second Respondent: Gary James Kelly; Third Respondent: Jaime Charles Farrelly; Fourth Respondent: 3 Property Group Holdings 2 Pty Ltd ACN 614 453 548; Fifth Respondent: Lifestyle Homes (ACT) Pty Ltd ACN 144 578 996
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 November 2021
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application Regarding Costs / Post Interlocutory Hearing, Costs Determination
Outcome
Order for costs in the cause; previous costs order vacated
Legal Topics
Costs, Interlocutory Applications, Caveats, Corporate Insolvency
Commercial Law Corporations Law Costs Interlocutory Applications Caveats Corporate Insolvency

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 4 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

3 Property Group 13 Pty Ltd (in liquidation) ACN 621 691 932

First Applicant

Stephen John Hundy in his capacity as liquidator of 3 Property Group 13 Pty Ltd (in liquidation) ACN 621 691 932

Second Applicant

3 Property Group 17 Pty Ltd ACN 623 493 952

First Respondent

Gary James Kelly

Second Respondent

Jaime Charles Farrelly

Third Respondent

3 Property Group Holdings 2 Pty Ltd ACN 614 453 548

Fourth Respondent

Lifestyle Homes (ACT) Pty Ltd ACN 144 578 996

Fifth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application Regarding Costs / Post Interlocutory Hearing, Costs Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the appropriate costs order following an interlocutory application to vacate or maintain a caveat?
  2. 2 Are principles related to interlocutory injunctions applicable to an interlocutory challenge about continuation of a caveat?
  3. 3 Should applicants' costs be costs in the cause or should costs follow the event?

Ratio Decidendi

The appropriate costs order, following an interlocutory application to vacate an order extending the operation of a caveat, is that the applicants' costs be costs in the cause, not costs follow the event. This reflects the principles relating to interlocutory injunctions, recognising the preservation of the status quo pending final determination and the absence of disentitling conduct by respondents.

Court Disposition

Order for costs in the cause; previous costs order vacated

Orders

  • Order 6 made on 21 September 2021 is vacated.
  • The applicants' costs of and incidental to the hearing on 21 September 2021 be costs in the cause.