Re Sunnya Pty Limited [2023] NSWSC 469

Re Sunnya Pty Limited [2023] NSWSC 469

The Plaintiffs' costs of the interlocutory applications against Mr He, Ms Lu and GABT should be costs in the cause because the relief was interlocutory and its utility depends on the Plaintiffs' ultimate success or failure in the proceedings. No costs order was made for the mediation because it was the subject of an inter partes agreement noted by the Court rather than a Court-ordered mediation. No order as to costs was made between the Plaintiffs and Supermega for the hearings on 3 and 9 March 2023 because the 3 March hearing produced only a temporary deferral and clarification, and the 9 March result was mixed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 May 2023
Procedural Posture
Costs Determination in Equity Corporations List Proceedings / On the Papers; Reserved Costs Issues Concerning Interlocutory Applications and a Mediation That Did Not Proceed
Outcome
Parties directed to bring in short minutes of order to give effect to the costs judgment.
Legal Topics
['costs of Interlocutory Applications' 'costs in the Cause' 'costs Thrown Away' 'mediation Costs' 'interlocutory Injunctive Relief' 'freezing Orders']
['civil Procedure' 'costs' 'corporations'] ['costs of Interlocutory Applications' 'costs in the Cause' 'costs Thrown Away' 'mediation Costs' 'interlocutory Injunctive Relief' 'freezing Orders']

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 Determination in Equity Corporations List Proceedings / On the Papers; Reserved Costs Issues Concerning Interlocutory Applications and a Mediation That Did Not Proceed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the First, Second and Third Defendants should pay the Plaintiffs' costs forthwith on the ordinary basis for the Interlocutory Process filed on 4 November 2022, as amended on 8 and 10 November 2022." 'Whether costs should be ordered in respect of a mediation that did not proceed.' "Whether costs should be ordered for the Plaintiffs' Interlocutory Process filed on 17 February 2023, including costs relating to freezing orders and interlocutory injunctive relief against the Eighth and Ninth Defendants."]

Ratio Decidendi

The Plaintiffs' costs of the interlocutory applications against Mr He, Ms Lu and GABT should be costs in the cause because the relief was interlocutory and its utility depends on the Plaintiffs' ultimate success or failure in the proceedings. No costs order was made for the mediation because it was the subject of an inter partes agreement noted by the Court rather than a Court-ordered mediation. No order as to costs was made between the Plaintiffs and Supermega for the hearings on 3 and 9 March 2023 because the 3 March hearing produced only a temporary deferral and clarification, and the 9 March result was mixed.

Court Disposition

Parties directed to bring in short minutes of order to give effect to the costs judgment.

Orders

  • ["The Plaintiffs' costs of their Interlocutory Process filed on 4 November 2022, and amended on 8 and 10 November 2022, are to be costs in the cause." "The Plaintiffs' costs of their Interlocutory Process filed on 17 February 2023 as against Mr He, Ms Lu and GABT are to be costs in the cause." 'No order is made as...