MR Group Investments Pty Ltd v Back (No 2) [2019] NSWSC 945

MR Group Investments Pty Ltd v Back (No 2) [2019] NSWSC 945

The notices of motion fell within the ordinary conduct of the proceedings, the defendants acted reasonably in pursuing and narrowing the subpoenas to achieve a legitimate forensic purpose, there was no capitulation or disentitling conduct, and the relevance of the Law Society of New South Wales Scheme was not made out. The appropriate order was therefore that, as between the plaintiffs and the defendants, the costs of both notices of motion be costs in the cause.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 July 2019
Procedural Posture
Costs Ruling on Notices of Motion Concerning Subpoenas, Third Party Discovery and Evidence / Ex Tempore Decision After Notices of Motion Resolved by Consent, Determining Outstanding Costs Issue Between Plaintiffs and Defendants
Outcome
Costs of the notices of motion filed on 12 April 2019 and 20 June 2019 ordered to be costs in the cause as between the plaintiffs and the defendants.
Legal Topics
['costs in the Cause' 'subpoenas' 'third Party Discovery' 'advance Ruling on Evidence' 'professional Standards Scheme Monetary Ceiling']
['civil Procedure' 'costs' 'evidence'] ['costs in the Cause' 'subpoenas' 'third Party Discovery' 'advance Ruling on Evidence' 'professional Standards Scheme Monetary Ceiling']

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 Ruling on Notices of Motion Concerning Subpoenas, Third Party Discovery and Evidence / Ex Tempore Decision After Notices of Motion Resolved by Consent, Determining Outstanding Costs Issue Between Plaintiffs and Defendants

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether, as between the plaintiffs and the defendants, the costs of the notices of motion filed on 12 April 2019 and 20 June 2019 should be costs in the cause or the plaintiffs' costs in the cause." "Whether the defendants' conduct in issuing and later narrowing the subpoenas or filing the Evidence Motion warranted a costs order favourable to the plaintiffs." 'Whether the $1.5 million monetary ceiling under the Law Society of New South Wales Scheme should affect the exercise of the costs discretion.']

Ratio Decidendi

The notices of motion fell within the ordinary conduct of the proceedings, the defendants acted reasonably in pursuing and narrowing the subpoenas to achieve a legitimate forensic purpose, there was no capitulation or disentitling conduct, and the relevance of the Law Society of New South Wales Scheme was not made out. The appropriate order was therefore that, as between the plaintiffs and the defendants, the costs of both notices of motion be costs in the cause.

Court Disposition

Costs of the notices of motion filed on 12 April 2019 and 20 June 2019 ordered to be costs in the cause as between the plaintiffs and the defendants.

Orders

  • ['As between the plaintiffs and the defendants, the costs of the notices of motion filed on 12 April 2019 and 20 June 2019 be costs in the cause.']