Reliance Rail Pty Limited v Permanent Custodians Limited (No. 2) [2018] NSWSC 337

Reliance Rail Pty Limited v Permanent Custodians Limited (No. 2) [2018] NSWSC 337

Although both parties and succeeded on various issues, the defendants were entirely successful on the fundamental commercial question. Success for costs purposes was determined by reference to the substantive outcome rather than issue-by-issue. Plaintiffs failed on the fundamental question, so defendants are entitled to their costs.

Parties
First Plaintiff: Reliance Rail Pty Limited; Second Plaintiff: Reliance Rail Finance Pty Limited; Third Plaintiff: Reliance Rail Holdings Pty Limited; Third Defendant: Dexia Credit Local Sa; Fourth Defendant: FMS Wertmanagement Aör
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 March 2018
Procedural Posture
Equity Commercial List / Costs Application Following Substantive Judgment
Outcome
Plaintiffs ordered to pay third and fourth defendants' costs; no other order as to costs.
Legal Topics
Costs, Costs Follow the Event, Discretion as to Costs
Civil Procedure Costs Costs Follow the Event Discretion as to Costs

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

Reliance Rail Pty Limited

First Plaintiff

Reliance Rail Finance Pty Limited

Second Plaintiff

Reliance Rail Holdings Pty Limited

Third Plaintiff

Dexia Credit Local Sa

Third Defendant

FMS Wertmanagement Aör

Fourth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Equity Commercial List / Costs Application Following Substantive Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether costs should follow the event when both parties succeeded on various issues but defendants succeeded on the fundamental commercial question
  2. 2 How to determine 'success' for the purpose of costs—the issue-by-issue approach versus the fundamental commercial question

Ratio Decidendi

Although both parties and succeeded on various issues, the defendants were entirely successful on the fundamental commercial question. Success for costs purposes was determined by reference to the substantive outcome rather than issue-by-issue. Plaintiffs failed on the fundamental question, so defendants are entitled to their costs.

Court Disposition

Plaintiffs ordered to pay third and fourth defendants' costs; no other order as to costs.

Orders

  • Plaintiffs to pay the third and fourth defendants' costs of the proceedings.
  • Make no other order as to costs.