In the matter of Meglo-Yowrie Flat Units Pty Ltd (No 2) [2024] NSWSC 443

In the matter of Meglo-Yowrie Flat Units Pty Ltd (No 2) [2024] NSWSC 443

The costs discretion was exercised so that costs followed the main event, namely Ms Blumentals' success in obtaining the order requiring registration of the disputed share transfer, over the active opposition of Ms Newstead and Mr Hendy. The oppression claim was essentially a dispute between shareholders and Ms Newstead and Mr Hendy were proper contradictors who chose to defend the personal declaratory claims and the oppression claim. The abandoned personal claims were already addressed by earlier costs orders, the later amendment application did not materially add to costs, and the parties shared responsibility for the excessive and irrelevant evidentiary material. The company's...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 April 2024
Procedural Posture
Equity Corporations List Costs Determination / On the Papers After Principal Judgment
Outcome
Costs orders made in favour of Ms Blumentals against the third and fourth defendants for the proceedings, and against the first defendant for the cross-summons; no costs order made for or against the second and fifth defendants.
Legal Topics
['costs Discretion' 'costs Following the Event' 'oppression Proceedings' 'cross Summons Dismissed Without Hearing on the Merits' 'ordinary Basis Costs']
['costs' 'corporations'] ['costs Discretion' 'costs Following the Event' 'oppression Proceedings' 'cross Summons Dismissed Without Hearing on the Merits' 'ordinary Basis 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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Equity Corporations List Costs Determination / On the Papers After Principal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether Ms Newstead and Mr Hendy should pay Ms Blumentals' costs of the proceedings after Ms Blumentals succeeded in obtaining an order under s 233 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) requiring the company to register the transfer of shares." "Whether the outcome was a mixed result such that Ms Blumentals should pay Ms Newstead's and Mr Hendy's costs or there should be no order as to costs between them." "Whether the costs of the company's cross-summons should be paid by the company, Ms Newstead and Mr Hendy, or otherwise dealt with." "Whether the parties' conduct of the proceedings and Ms Blumentals' amendment applications warranted a different costs order." 'Whether procedural fairness required an oral hearing on costs.']

Ratio Decidendi

The costs discretion was exercised so that costs followed the main event, namely Ms Blumentals' success in obtaining the order requiring registration of the disputed share transfer, over the active opposition of Ms Newstead and Mr Hendy. The oppression claim was essentially a dispute between shareholders and Ms Newstead and Mr Hendy were proper contradictors who chose to defend the personal declaratory claims and the oppression claim. The abandoned personal claims were already addressed by earlier costs orders, the later amendment application did not materially add to costs, and the parties shared responsibility for the excessive and irrelevant evidentiary material. The company's...

Court Disposition

Costs orders made in favour of Ms Blumentals against the third and fourth defendants for the proceedings, and against the first defendant for the cross-summons; no costs order made for or against the second and fifth defendants.

Orders

  • ["Order that, subject to order 3 below, the plaintiff's costs of the proceedings (excluding the costs that are the subject of order 2 below) are to be paid by the third and fourth defendants on the ordinary basis, as agreed or assessed." "Order that, subject to order 3 below, the first defendant is to pay the...