White, in the matter of Mossgreen Pty Ltd (Administrators Appointed) (No 7) [2019] FCA 113

White, in the matter of Mossgreen Pty Ltd (Administrators Appointed) (No 7) [2019] FCA 113

The interested persons were not entitled to costs because the administrators' directions application sought protection for the administrators from personal liability rather than a binding determination of rights against the consignors, the refusal of the direction did not finally determine the equitable lien issue or vindicate a legal interest of the interested persons, and their participation did not amount to extraordinary or exceptional circumstances displacing the ordinary position that persons heard under r 2.13 should not receive costs.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 February 2019
Procedural Posture
Application for Costs by Interested Persons in a Corporations Directions Proceeding / Determined on the Papers After Administrators' Application for Directions Concerning an Asserted Equitable Lien Was Refused
Outcome
No order as to costs.
Legal Topics
['costs of Interested Persons' "administrators' Directions" 'equitable Lien Over Bailed Property' 'non Party Costs' 'federal Court Corporations Procedure']
['costs' 'corporations' 'corporate Insolvency'] ['costs of Interested Persons' "administrators' Directions" 'equitable Lien Over Bailed Property' 'non Party Costs' 'federal Court Corporations Procedure']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application for Costs by Interested Persons in a Corporations Directions Proceeding / Determined on the Papers After Administrators' Application for Directions Concerning an Asserted Equitable Lien Was Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether interested persons who were granted leave to be heard and successfully opposed administrators' directions concerning an asserted equitable lien should receive their costs." "Whether the Court should order the administrators, and in Dr Pemberton's case Mossgreen, to pay those costs on an indemnity basis." 'Whether the circumstances were extraordinary or exceptional so as to justify a costs order in favour of non-party interested persons.']

Ratio Decidendi

The interested persons were not entitled to costs because the administrators' directions application sought protection for the administrators from personal liability rather than a binding determination of rights against the consignors, the refusal of the direction did not finally determine the equitable lien issue or vindicate a legal interest of the interested persons, and their participation did not amount to extraordinary or exceptional circumstances displacing the ordinary position that persons heard under r 2.13 should not receive costs.

Court Disposition

No order as to costs.

Orders

  • ['There be no order as to costs in connection with the hearing on 29 March 2018 or of the costs debate thereof.']