In the matter of St Gregory’s Armenian School Inc [2020] NSWSC 1124
An order for indemnity costs against the Plaintiffs/Applicants was warranted in respect of the 2 March 2020 Costs Application because they were on clear notice of the fundamental flaws in their application and yet continued, altered grounds without proper factual articulation, and unnecessarily put the Liquidators to significant additional cost. Costs of the 10 June 2020 Interlocutory Process and subsequent hearing are to be on the ordinary basis, as the deficiencies, while significant, did not reach the level required for indemnity costs. No order as to costs was appropriate for the 15 July 2020 Interlocutory Process or the costs application itself.
- Parties
- First Plaintiff/first Applicant: Michael Ghougassian; Second Plaintiff/second Applicant: Daniel Ghougassian; First Defendant/respondent: Philip Campbell-Wilson and John McInerney in their capacity as Liquidators of St Gregory's Armenian School Inc (in liq); Second Defendant/respondent: St Gregory's Armenian School Inc (in liq)
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 24 August 2020
- Procedural Posture
- Interlocutory Costs Applications in Ongoing Liquidation Proceedings / Determination of Costs Following Interlocutory Applications; on the Papers
- Outcome
- Costs largely awarded to the Defendants/Respondents, with indemnity costs for the 2 March 2020 application; ordinary costs for 10 June 2020 application; no order as to costs for 15 July 2020 application or the costs application itself.
- Legal Topics
- Costs, Indemnity Costs, Liquidation, Interlocutory Proceedings
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Michael Ghougassian
First Plaintiff/first Applicant
Daniel Ghougassian
Second Plaintiff/second Applicant
Philip Campbell-Wilson and John McInerney in their capacity as Liquidators of St Gregory's Armenian School Inc (in liq)
First Defendant/respondent
St Gregory's Armenian School Inc (in liq)
Second Defendant/respondent
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Costs Applications in Ongoing Liquidation Proceedings / Determination of Costs Following Interlocutory Applications; on the Papers
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether indemnity costs should be awarded against the Plaintiffs in respect of the 2 March 2020 Interlocutory Process (Costs Application)
- 2 Whether costs of the 10 June 2020 Interlocutory Process (Subpoena Application) should be on the ordinary or indemnity basis
- 3 Appropriate costs orders for each interlocutory application
Ratio Decidendi
An order for indemnity costs against the Plaintiffs/Applicants was warranted in respect of the 2 March 2020 Costs Application because they were on clear notice of the fundamental flaws in their application and yet continued, altered grounds without proper factual articulation, and unnecessarily put the Liquidators to significant additional cost. Costs of the 10 June 2020 Interlocutory Process and subsequent hearing are to be on the ordinary basis, as the deficiencies, while significant, did not reach the level required for indemnity costs. No order as to costs was appropriate for the 15 July 2020 Interlocutory Process or the costs application itself.
Court Disposition
Costs largely awarded to the Defendants/Respondents, with indemnity costs for the 2 March 2020 application; ordinary costs for 10 June 2020 application; no order as to costs for 15 July 2020 application or the costs application itself.
Orders
- The Plaintiffs, the Messrs Ghougassian, pay the Defendants' costs of and incidental to their Interlocutory Process filed on 2 March 2020 on an indemnity basis, as agreed or as assessed.
- The Plaintiffs, the Messrs Ghougassian, pay the Defendants' costs of and incidental to their Interlocutory Process filed on 10 June 2020 and the hearing on 18 June 2020 on an ordinary basis, as agreed or as assessed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment