ICAP Australia v Forrest Moebes [2010] NSWSC 738

ICAP Australia v Forrest Moebes [2010] NSWSC 738

The compromise was a genuine compromise and not a substantial victory for either side, and the defendants did not act unreasonably in filing the motion because the existing confidentiality regime was too restrictive and the plaintiffs were resisting any substantial change. The appropriate costs order was therefore that the costs of the motion be costs in the cause.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 July 2010
Procedural Posture
Costs Application Concerning a Motion About Confidentiality Undertakings / Consequential Orders After Compromise of the Substantive Motion
Outcome
Costs of the motion ordered to be costs in the cause.
Legal Topics
['costs of Compromised Motion' 'confidentiality Undertakings' 'implied Undertaking' 'case Management Under Civil Procedure Act 2005']
['civil Procedure' 'costs' 'confidentiality'] ['costs of Compromised Motion' 'confidentiality Undertakings' 'implied Undertaking' 'case Management Under Civil Procedure Act 2005']

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 Application Concerning a Motion About Confidentiality Undertakings / Consequential Orders After Compromise of the Substantive Motion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the plaintiffs should have their costs of the defendants' motion after the parties compromised the substantive confidentiality issue." 'Whether the defendants acted unreasonably in filing the motion seeking release from confidentiality undertakings.' 'Whether, in confidentiality applications involving many documents, the court must require document-by-document justification or may consider the reasonableness of a confidentiality regime.']

Ratio Decidendi

The compromise was a genuine compromise and not a substantial victory for either side, and the defendants did not act unreasonably in filing the motion because the existing confidentiality regime was too restrictive and the plaintiffs were resisting any substantial change. The appropriate costs order was therefore that the costs of the motion be costs in the cause.

Court Disposition

Costs of the motion ordered to be costs in the cause.

Orders

  • ['Order that costs of the motion be costs in the cause.']