Dr Leo Shanahan v Jatese Pty Ltd [No 2] [2018] NSWSC 1306

Dr Leo Shanahan v Jatese Pty Ltd [No 2] [2018] NSWSC 1306

Costs should follow the event because, although the plaintiffs/minority established oppression, they failed to establish that the oppressive conduct had relevant economic consequences and therefore failed on relief. Apportionment was not justified or practical. Indemnity costs were refused because the offers of compromise were not genuine compromises but called for capitulation at an early stage, and the minority's claim did not lack merit.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 August 2018
Procedural Posture
Costs in Oppression Proceedings / Written Submissions Following Principal Judgment
Outcome
The defendants were awarded their costs of the proceedings, but not on an indemnity basis under the offers of compromise.
Legal Topics
['costs Following the Event' 'apportionment of Costs' 'indemnity Costs' 'offers of Compromise' 'oppression']
['civil Procedure' 'costs' 'corporations'] ['costs Following the Event' 'apportionment of Costs' 'indemnity Costs' 'offers of Compromise' 'oppression']

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 in Oppression Proceedings / Written Submissions Following Principal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether costs should follow the event after the plaintiffs established oppression but failed to obtain relief.' 'Whether costs should be apportioned because the plaintiffs succeeded on the issue of oppressive conduct.' 'Whether the defendants should receive indemnity costs from 21 July 2015 or 21 September 2015 on the basis of offers of compromise.']

Ratio Decidendi

Costs should follow the event because, although the plaintiffs/minority established oppression, they failed to establish that the oppressive conduct had relevant economic consequences and therefore failed on relief. Apportionment was not justified or practical. Indemnity costs were refused because the offers of compromise were not genuine compromises but called for capitulation at an early stage, and the minority's claim did not lack merit.

Court Disposition

The defendants were awarded their costs of the proceedings, but not on an indemnity basis under the offers of compromise.

Orders

  • ["The plaintiffs are to pay the defendants' costs of the proceedings."]