Australian Real Estate Relation Pty Ltd (in liquidation) v Farha Diba (No 2) [2024] NSWSC 42

Australian Real Estate Relation Pty Ltd (in liquidation) v Farha Diba (No 2) [2024] NSWSC 42

The amendment to the costs order is appropriate to facilitate enforcement, as only the second and third plaintiffs were properly prosecuting the proceedings for their own benefit, while the first plaintiff (in liquidation) and the fourth plaintiff (not a legal entity) could not properly be liable.

Parties
First Plaintiff: Australian Real Estate Relation Pty Ltd (in liquidation); Second Plaintiff: Mortgage Plus Australia Pty Ltd; Third Plaintiff: MD Rajibul Islam; Fourth Plaintiff: Trustees of Gulf Bridge Investments Trust; First Defendant: Farha Diba; Second Defendant: Real Estate Macarthur Group Pty Ltd; Third Defendant: Raine & Horne Corporation; Fourth Defendant: Angus Raine; Fifth Defendant: Andrew Brian; Sixth Defendant: Celeste Koppe
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 February 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Procedure Costs / Post Judgment Amendment of Costs Order
Outcome
Amendment of costs order granted
Legal Topics
Costs, Variation of Costs Order, Enforcement of Costs Orders
Civil Procedure Costs Variation of Costs Order Enforcement of Costs Orders

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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Australian Real Estate Relation Pty Ltd (in liquidation)

First Plaintiff

Mortgage Plus Australia Pty Ltd

Second Plaintiff

MD Rajibul Islam

Third Plaintiff

Trustees of Gulf Bridge Investments Trust

Fourth Plaintiff

Farha Diba

First Defendant

Real Estate Macarthur Group Pty Ltd

Second Defendant

Raine & Horne Corporation

Third Defendant

Angus Raine

Fourth Defendant

Andrew Brian

Fifth Defendant

Celeste Koppe

Sixth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Procedure Costs / Post Judgment Amendment of Costs Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether costs order should be varied to facilitate enforcement against active plaintiffs
  2. 2 Whether costs order should be limited to active parties where others are incapable of bringing or maintaining proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

The amendment to the costs order is appropriate to facilitate enforcement, as only the second and third plaintiffs were properly prosecuting the proceedings for their own benefit, while the first plaintiff (in liquidation) and the fourth plaintiff (not a legal entity) could not properly be liable.

Court Disposition

Amendment of costs order granted

Orders

  • Amend order 2 pronounced on 21 December 2023 to read: 'The second and third plaintiffs are to pay the costs of the first, second, fourth and sixth defendants.'