Sheahan v Londish [2010] NSWCA 364

Sheahan v Londish [2010] NSWCA 364

Because the appeal succeeded on the s 1322(4)(a) ground, Peter Londish had little or no interest in the outcome after the Administrators' appointment was confirmed, yet he unreasonably did not accept or counter the Administrators' offer to resolve the appeal and contested all issues solely to preserve his costs order. Peter's active opposition to curative orders also caused the Administrators, who had taken a disinterested role at first instance, to incur costs. Accordingly Peter Londish should pay the Administrators' costs of the application for leave to appeal, the appeal, and the interlocutory proceeding at first instance, and should pay the costs of the dismissed motion.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 December 2010
Procedural Posture
Consequential Costs Orders in Application for Leave to Appeal and Appeal / Costs Decided on the Papers After Appeal Allowed; Motion to Re Open Dismissed by Consent
Outcome
Costs orders made; motion to re-open appeal dismissed by consent.
Legal Topics
['costs of Application for Leave to Appeal and Appeal' 'costs Following the Event' 'curative Orders Under the Corporations Act 2001 (cth)' 'appointment of Administrators' 'motion to Re Open Appeal']
['procedure' 'costs' 'corporations Law'] ['costs of Application for Leave to Appeal and Appeal' 'costs Following the Event' 'curative Orders Under the Corporations Act 2001 (cth)' 'appointment of Administrators' 'motion to Re Open Appeal']

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

Consequential Costs Orders in Application for Leave to Appeal and Appeal / Costs Decided on the Papers After Appeal Allowed; Motion to Re Open Dismissed by Consent

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['What costs orders should be made after the application for leave to appeal and appeal succeeded on the s 1322(4)(a) ground.' "Whether Peter Londish should pay the Administrators' costs of the application for leave to appeal and appeal after rejecting an offer that each party bear its own costs." "Whether Peter Londish should pay the Administrators' costs of the interlocutory proceeding at first instance." "What costs order should be made on Peter Londish's motion filed on 11 November 2010 seeking leave to re-open the appeal, which was not pursued and was dismissed by consent."]

Ratio Decidendi

Because the appeal succeeded on the s 1322(4)(a) ground, Peter Londish had little or no interest in the outcome after the Administrators' appointment was confirmed, yet he unreasonably did not accept or counter the Administrators' offer to resolve the appeal and contested all issues solely to preserve his costs order. Peter's active opposition to curative orders also caused the Administrators, who had taken a disinterested role at first instance, to incur costs. Accordingly Peter Londish should pay the Administrators' costs of the application for leave to appeal, the appeal, and the interlocutory proceeding at first instance, and should pay the costs of the dismissed motion.

Court Disposition

Costs orders made; motion to re-open appeal dismissed by consent.

Orders

  • ["Order that the first respondent, Peter Londish, pay the costs of the applicants/appellants, John Sheahan and Ian Lock, of the application for leave to appeal and of the appeal, and that he have a certificate under the Suitors' Fund Act 1951 if otherwise eligible." 'On the motion brought by notice of motion filed...