Mackay Sugar Limited v Wilmar Sugar Australia Limited (No 3) [2016] FCA 1456

Mackay Sugar Limited v Wilmar Sugar Australia Limited (No 3) [2016] FCA 1456

Because Wilmar was unsuccessful in the interlocutory application, was unsuccessful in the principal proceedings, and had joined MSF and QSL as respondents to an application affecting their positions, Wilmar was ordered to pay the applicants' interlocutory costs, MSF's costs of properly discharging its passive role, and QSL's limited costs of considering the material, taking advice and communicating its election to abide the result.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 December 2016
Procedural Posture
Corporations Proceeding; Costs of Interlocutory Application / Determination of Reserved Costs After Dismissal of Interlocutory Application
Outcome
Reserved costs of the interlocutory application were ordered to be paid by the first respondent, Wilmar Sugar Australia Limited, including limited costs for QSL.
Legal Topics
['costs of Interlocutory Application' 'interlocutory Injunction' 'oppression Under Section 232 of the Corporations Act 2001 (cth)' 'federal Court Rules Costs Discretion']
['corporations' 'civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['costs of Interlocutory Application' 'interlocutory Injunction' 'oppression Under Section 232 of the Corporations Act 2001 (cth)' 'federal Court Rules Costs Discretion']

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

Corporations Proceeding; Costs of Interlocutory Application / Determination of Reserved Costs After Dismissal of Interlocutory Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the costs of the applicants of and incidental to Wilmar's interlocutory application should be paid by Wilmar or treated as costs in the cause." 'Whether MSF Sugar Limited should recover costs despite adopting a passive role on the interlocutory application.' "Whether Queensland Sugar Limited should recover limited costs after filing a submitting notice and abiding by the Court's determination."]

Ratio Decidendi

Because Wilmar was unsuccessful in the interlocutory application, was unsuccessful in the principal proceedings, and had joined MSF and QSL as respondents to an application affecting their positions, Wilmar was ordered to pay the applicants' interlocutory costs, MSF's costs of properly discharging its passive role, and QSL's limited costs of considering the material, taking advice and communicating its election to abide the result.

Court Disposition

Reserved costs of the interlocutory application were ordered to be paid by the first respondent, Wilmar Sugar Australia Limited, including limited costs for QSL.

Orders

  • ['The costs of the applicants of and incidental to the interlocutory application filed on 28 June 2016 be paid by the first respondent.' 'The costs of the second respondent of and incidental to the interlocutory application referred to in paragraph 1 be paid by the first respondent.' 'The costs of the third...