Mango Boulevard Pty Ltd v Whitton [2015] FCA 1352

Mango Boulevard Pty Ltd v Whitton [2015] FCA 1352

The respondents were generally entitled to their costs because the applicants' substantive application had been dismissed, but only on a party and party basis. The second and third respondents had been wholly unsuccessful in their interlocutory application concerning production of privileged documents, so they were ordered to pay the applicants' reserved costs of that application. The first respondent, although said to have acted neutrally, made and failed in an application to reopen and had delayed in bringing it, so he was ordered to pay the applicants' costs of that application. Indemnity costs were refused because the second and third respondents did not establish abuse of process, a...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 December 2015
Procedural Posture
Costs Determination in a Bankruptcy Review Proceeding / After Dismissal of the Applicants' Application Under Ss 30 and 178 of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (cth), With Submissions as to Costs Heard on the Papers
Outcome
Costs ordered generally for the respondents on a party and party basis, with specific exceptions; indemnity costs refused.
Legal Topics
['costs Following Dismissal of Proceeding' 'reserved Costs' 'application to Reopen Case' 'indemnity Costs' 'collateral Purpose and Abuse of Process' 'offer of Compromise']
['bankruptcy' 'civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['costs Following Dismissal of Proceeding' 'reserved Costs' 'application to Reopen Case' 'indemnity Costs' 'collateral Purpose and Abuse of Process' 'offer 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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Costs Determination in a Bankruptcy Review Proceeding / After Dismissal of the Applicants' Application Under Ss 30 and 178 of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (cth), With Submissions as to Costs Heard on the Papers

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the applicants should pay reserved costs of the second and third respondents' interlocutory application filed on 24 October 2013" "Whether the applicants or the first respondent should pay costs of the first respondent's unsuccessful application to reopen his case" "Whether the second and third respondents' costs should be awarded on an indemnity basis rather than on a party and party basis"]

Ratio Decidendi

The respondents were generally entitled to their costs because the applicants' substantive application had been dismissed, but only on a party and party basis. The second and third respondents had been wholly unsuccessful in their interlocutory application concerning production of privileged documents, so they were ordered to pay the applicants' reserved costs of that application. The first respondent, although said to have acted neutrally, made and failed in an application to reopen and had delayed in bringing it, so he was ordered to pay the applicants' costs of that application. Indemnity costs were refused because the second and third respondents did not establish abuse of process, a...

Court Disposition

Costs ordered generally for the respondents on a party and party basis, with specific exceptions; indemnity costs refused.

Orders

  • ["The applicants pay the first respondent's and the second and third respondents' costs of the proceeding (including reserved costs and the costs of the first respondent's application for directions filed on 16 March 2011), other than the costs described in Orders 2, 3, 4 and 5." "The second and third respondents...