Mainland Property Holdings Pty Ltd (Receivers and Managers Appointed) v Naplend Pty Ltd (No 3) [2023] FCA 309

Mainland Property Holdings Pty Ltd (Receivers and Managers Appointed) v Naplend Pty Ltd (No 3) [2023] FCA 309

Because the respondents succeeded in resisting the interlocutory application to restrain Mr Williams from acting, no good reason justified departure from the usual rule that costs follow the event, and the undertaking did not warrant any different costs order. The restraint application was brought at Mr Mawhinney's direction and for his benefit, so he should bear the respondents' party/party costs of that application, while any further contractual entitlement to actual costs should be reserved.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 April 2023
Procedural Posture
Costs Determination Following Dismissal of an Interlocutory Application to Restrain Counsel From Acting / Determined on the Papers After Written Submissions About Costs
Outcome
Mr Mawhinney was ordered to pay the respondents' costs of and incidental to the interlocutory application filed on 17 March 2023 on a party/party basis, with the question of the respondents' entitlement to the balance of their actual costs reserved.
Legal Topics
['costs Follow the Event' 'party/party Costs' 'apportionment of Costs' 'non Party Costs Order' 'contractual Entitlement to Costs' 'restraint of Counsel From Acting' 'confidential Information']
['costs' 'civil Procedure' 'commercial and Corporations' 'commercial Contracts, Banking, Finance and Insurance' 'legal Profession'] ['costs Follow the Event' 'party/party Costs' 'apportionment of Costs' 'non Party Costs Order' 'contractual Entitlement to Costs' 'restraint of Counsel From Acting' 'confidential Information']

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 Following Dismissal of an Interlocutory Application to Restrain Counsel From Acting / Determined on the Papers After Written Submissions About Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the respondents should receive their costs after successfully resisting the interlocutory application to restrain counsel from acting.' 'Whether costs should be apportioned or limited because the applicants had some success on confidentiality issues or because the respondents proffered an undertaking.' "Whether Mr Mawhinney should personally pay the respondents' costs of the interlocutory application." "Whether the respondents' alleged contractual entitlement to the balance of their actual costs should be determined or reserved."]

Ratio Decidendi

Because the respondents succeeded in resisting the interlocutory application to restrain Mr Williams from acting, no good reason justified departure from the usual rule that costs follow the event, and the undertaking did not warrant any different costs order. The restraint application was brought at Mr Mawhinney's direction and for his benefit, so he should bear the respondents' party/party costs of that application, while any further contractual entitlement to actual costs should be reserved.

Court Disposition

Mr Mawhinney was ordered to pay the respondents' costs of and incidental to the interlocutory application filed on 17 March 2023 on a party/party basis, with the question of the respondents' entitlement to the balance of their actual costs reserved.

Orders

  • ["Mr Mawhinney pay the respondents' costs of and incidental to the interlocutory application filed on 17 March 2023 on a party/party basis, to be taxed in default of agreement." "The question of the respondents' entitlement (if any) to the balance of their actual costs of and incidental to the application otherwise...