Ingram as trustee for the Ingram Superannuation Fund v Ardent Leisure Limited (No 2) [2020] FCA 1390

Ingram as trustee for the Ingram Superannuation Fund v Ardent Leisure Limited (No 2) [2020] FCA 1390

Although the respondents were overall successful in the principal application, the usual costs rule was displaced because they failed without explanation to clearly articulate in their written submissions the major argument on which they succeeded at the hearing, failed on many of the grounds they did articulate, and disclosed at the hearing one document sought by the applicants. The omission was inconsistent with the obligations in s 37N of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) and the overarching purpose in s 37M. However, because the respondents also succeeded on the discretionary ground and deliberate concealment was not established, a complete denial of costs was not...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 October 2020
Procedural Posture
Costs Following Dismissed Application for Inspection of Company Documents Under S 247 a of the Corporations Act 2001 (cth) / Heard on the Papers After Dismissal of the Principal Proceedings
Outcome
The respondents were awarded only 50% of their costs of the application.
Legal Topics
['costs Follow the Event' 'departure From Usual Costs Rule' 'inspection of Company Documents' 'overarching Purpose and Party Obligations' 'written Submissions and Ambush Litigation' 'apportionment of Costs']
['practice and Procedure' 'costs' 'corporations'] ['costs Follow the Event' 'departure From Usual Costs Rule' 'inspection of Company Documents' 'overarching Purpose and Party Obligations' 'written Submissions and Ambush Litigation' 'apportionment of 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

Costs Following Dismissed Application for Inspection of Company Documents Under S 247 a of the Corporations Act 2001 (cth) / Heard on the Papers After Dismissal of the Principal Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the respondents, having succeeded in having the application dismissed, should receive their costs according to the usual rule that costs follow the event.' "Whether the respondents' failure to clearly articulate before oral submissions the central argument on which they succeeded justified departing from the usual costs rule." "Whether the applicants had sufficient opportunity to respond to the respondents' central argument when it was raised orally." 'Whether the applicants changed their case as to the purpose for seeking inspection of the documents.' "Whether the respondents' failure on several arguments and the applicants' obtaining of one document warranted an apportionment of costs."]

Ratio Decidendi

Although the respondents were overall successful in the principal application, the usual costs rule was displaced because they failed without explanation to clearly articulate in their written submissions the major argument on which they succeeded at the hearing, failed on many of the grounds they did articulate, and disclosed at the hearing one document sought by the applicants. The omission was inconsistent with the obligations in s 37N of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) and the overarching purpose in s 37M. However, because the respondents also succeeded on the discretionary ground and deliberate concealment was not established, a complete denial of costs was not...

Court Disposition

The respondents were awarded only 50% of their costs of the application.

Orders

  • ["The applicants are to pay 50% of the respondents' costs of the application."]