In the matter of Bias Boating Pty Limited (receivers and managers appointed) (in liquidation) [2019] NSWSC 107

In the matter of Bias Boating Pty Limited (receivers and managers appointed) (in liquidation) [2019] NSWSC 107

The plaintiffs were successful in the costs application, including against the First and Thirteenth Defendants, who unsuccessfully resisted costs orders. Costs should follow the event and be awarded against them, as there is no sufficient ground to depart from the general rule.

Parties
First Plaintiff: Ian James Purchas in his capacity as liquidator of Bias Boating Pty Limited (receivers and managers appointed) (in liquidation); Second Plaintiff: Bias Boating Pty Limited (receivers and managers appointed) (in liquidation); First Defendant: Navico Australia Pty Limited; Second Defendant: Supercharge Batteries Pty Ltd; Third Defendant: R W Basham Pty Limited t/as RWB Marine; Eleventh Defendant: Commissioner of State Revenue (Qld); Thirteenth Defendant: Lalizas Marine Australia Pty Ltd t/as Oceansouth Pty Ltd; Sixteenth Defendant: Littler Investment Company Pty Ltd t/as Boating Lifestyle Adventure; Seventeenth Defendant: RFD (Australia) Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 February 2019
Procedural Posture
Costs Application / Determination of Costs Associated With Earlier Separate Question and Further Submissions
Outcome
Orders for costs against specified defendants
Legal Topics
Costs, Insolvency
Equity Corporations Costs 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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ian James Purchas in his capacity as liquidator of Bias Boating Pty Limited (receivers and managers appointed) (in liquidation)

First Plaintiff

Bias Boating Pty Limited (receivers and managers appointed) (in liquidation)

Second Plaintiff

Navico Australia Pty Limited

First Defendant

Supercharge Batteries Pty Ltd

Second Defendant

R W Basham Pty Limited t/as RWB Marine

Third Defendant

Commissioner of State Revenue (Qld)

Eleventh Defendant

Lalizas Marine Australia Pty Ltd t/as Oceansouth Pty Ltd

Thirteenth Defendant

Littler Investment Company Pty Ltd t/as Boating Lifestyle Adventure

Sixteenth Defendant

RFD (Australia) Pty Ltd

Seventeenth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Costs Application / Determination of Costs Associated With Earlier Separate Question and Further Submissions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Should costs of the application for costs of the separate question regarding solvency be awarded against the First, Second, Third, Eleventh, Thirteenth, Sixteenth and Seventeenth Defendants?
  2. 2 Should the First and Thirteenth Defendants pay the costs of and incidental to the Plaintiffs' further submissions dated 12 February 2019?

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiffs were successful in the costs application, including against the First and Thirteenth Defendants, who unsuccessfully resisted costs orders. Costs should follow the event and be awarded against them, as there is no sufficient ground to depart from the general rule.

Court Disposition

Orders for costs against specified defendants

Orders

  • The First, Second, Third, Eleventh, Thirteenth, Sixteenth and Seventeenth Defendants pay the Plaintiffs' costs of the application for costs of the separate question regarding the solvency of the Second Plaintiff, as agreed or as assessed.
  • The First and Thirteenth Defendants pay the Plaintiffs' costs of and incidental to the Plaintiffs' further submissions dated 12 February 2019, as agreed or as assessed.