Bist v Cyan Stone Clydesdale Estate 1 Pty Ltd (No 2) [2024] FCA 1332

Bist v Cyan Stone Clydesdale Estate 1 Pty Ltd (No 2) [2024] FCA 1332

The respondents failed to establish either that the applicants' pursuit of the interlocutory injunction was hopeless or that the rejection of the offer of compromise was unreasonable, particularly as relevant evidence was only provided after the offer expired; therefore, indemnity costs and an order that costs be payable forthwith were not justified.

Parties
First Applicant: Shasank Bist; Second Applicant: Natalia Bist; First Respondent: Cyan Stone Clydesdale Estate 1 Pty Ltd ACN 610 208 967; Second Respondent: Cyan Stone Clydesdale Estate 2 Pty Ltd ACN 610 209 106; Third Respondent: Cyan Stone Clydesdale Estate 3 Pty Ltd ACN 610 210 494; Fourth Respondent: Cyan Stone Clydesdale Pty Ltd ACN 610 008 172; Fifth Respondent: Cyan Stone Clydesdale Development Pty Ltd ACN 610 008 467; Sixth Respondent: Cyan Stone Clydesdale Holdings Pty Ltd ACN 610 008 510; Seventh Respondent: Astro Fort Clydesdale Pty Ltd ACN 675 838 507; Eighth Respondent: Astro Fort Holdings Pty Ltd ACN 675 830 270; Ninth Respondent: Marvia Joncas Holdings Pty Ltd ACN 671 948 502
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 November 2024
Procedural Posture
Application for Indemnity Costs and Payable Forthwith Order After Unsuccessful Interlocutory Injunction / Post Interlocutory Application for Costs (after Refusal of Injunction, Prior to Final Hearing)
Outcome
Application for indemnity costs and payable forthwith order dismissed.
Legal Topics
Costs, Interlocutory Injunctions, Offers of Compromise
Civil Procedure Costs Interlocutory Injunctions Offers of Compromise

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

Shasank Bist

First Applicant

Natalia Bist

Second Applicant

Cyan Stone Clydesdale Estate 1 Pty Ltd ACN 610 208 967

First Respondent

Cyan Stone Clydesdale Estate 2 Pty Ltd ACN 610 209 106

Second Respondent

Cyan Stone Clydesdale Estate 3 Pty Ltd ACN 610 210 494

Third Respondent

Cyan Stone Clydesdale Pty Ltd ACN 610 008 172

Fourth Respondent

Cyan Stone Clydesdale Development Pty Ltd ACN 610 008 467

Fifth Respondent

Cyan Stone Clydesdale Holdings Pty Ltd ACN 610 008 510

Sixth Respondent

Astro Fort Clydesdale Pty Ltd ACN 675 838 507

Seventh Respondent

Astro Fort Holdings Pty Ltd ACN 675 830 270

Eighth Respondent

Marvia Joncas Holdings Pty Ltd ACN 671 948 502

Ninth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Indemnity Costs and Payable Forthwith Order After Unsuccessful Interlocutory Injunction / Post Interlocutory Application for Costs (after Refusal of Injunction, Prior to Final Hearing)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether indemnity costs should be awarded against the applicants for the interlocutory injunction application
  2. 2 Whether costs should be payable forthwith contrary to r 40.13 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth)

Ratio Decidendi

The respondents failed to establish either that the applicants' pursuit of the interlocutory injunction was hopeless or that the rejection of the offer of compromise was unreasonable, particularly as relevant evidence was only provided after the offer expired; therefore, indemnity costs and an order that costs be payable forthwith were not justified.

Court Disposition

Application for indemnity costs and payable forthwith order dismissed.

Orders

  • The seventh to ninth respondents' interlocutory application dated 25 October 2024 for indemnity costs and for costs to be payable forthwith be dismissed.
  • The seventh to ninth respondents pay the costs of that application.