DSG Holdings Australia Pty Ltd v Helenic Pty Ltd (No 2) [2014] NSWCA 142

DSG Holdings Australia Pty Ltd v Helenic Pty Ltd (No 2) [2014] NSWCA 142

The appellants were ordered to pay the respondents' costs because there was no reason to displace the ordinary rule that costs follow the event. Any unrecovered costs of the first and second respondents were ordered to be costs in the winding up of the third respondent. Interest on costs was refused because, without argument or a contradictor, it was inappropriate to resolve the apparent conflict in authority, and the costs in these proceedings must have been incurred very recently, making the case unsuitable for an award of interest on costs.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 May 2014
Procedural Posture
Costs / Costs Orders Following Refusal of Leave and Dismissal of Appeal
Outcome
The first and second appellants were ordered to pay the respondents' costs; unrecovered costs of the first and second respondents were made costs in the winding up of the third respondent; no order was made for interest on costs.
Legal Topics
['costs Following the Event' 'interest on Costs' 'costs in Winding Up']
['practice and Procedure'] ['costs Following the Event' 'interest on Costs' 'costs in Winding Up']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Costs / Costs Orders Following Refusal of Leave and Dismissal of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the first and second appellants should pay the respondents' costs of the proceedings." 'Whether any unrecovered costs of the first and second respondents should be costs in the winding up of the third respondent.' 'Whether interest should be ordered on amounts payable under the costs orders pursuant to s 101 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW).']

Ratio Decidendi

The appellants were ordered to pay the respondents' costs because there was no reason to displace the ordinary rule that costs follow the event. Any unrecovered costs of the first and second respondents were ordered to be costs in the winding up of the third respondent. Interest on costs was refused because, without argument or a contradictor, it was inappropriate to resolve the apparent conflict in authority, and the costs in these proceedings must have been incurred very recently, making the case unsuitable for an award of interest on costs.

Court Disposition

The first and second appellants were ordered to pay the respondents' costs; unrecovered costs of the first and second respondents were made costs in the winding up of the third respondent; no order was made for interest on costs.

Orders

  • ["The first and second appellants pay the respondents' costs of these proceedings as agreed or assessed." 'To the extent that the costs of the first and second respondents (as agreed or assessed) are not recovered from the first or second appellant, those costs be costs in the winding up of the third respondent.']