M & S Butler Investments Pty Ltd & Ors v Granny May's Franchising Pty Ltd & Ors Stewart, Jack & Anor v Granny May's Franchising Pty Ltd & Ors [1997] FCA 1141

M & S Butler Investments Pty Ltd & Ors v Granny May's Franchising Pty Ltd & Ors Stewart, Jack & Anor v Granny May's Franchising Pty Ltd & Ors [1997] FCA 1141

Because the respondents' primary applications were substantively successful and the Stewarts had already paid the respondents' agreed costs following discontinuance, M & S Butler Investments Pty Ltd and Mark Butler and Shauna Butler were ordered to pay the respondents' costs of the motion filed 4 November 1996. In all the circumstances concerning the motion filed 24 February 1997, the appropriate order was no order as to costs.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 October 1997
Procedural Posture
Motions in Federal Court Proceedings / Determination of Remaining Costs Issues After Earlier Orders and Reasons for Judgment
Outcome
Costs orders made in respect of the motions filed 4 November 1996 and 24 February 1997.
Legal Topics
['costs of Motions' 'discontinuance' 'leave to Proceed Against a Company Under S 440 D of the Corporations Law' 'concurrent Hearing of Proceedings']
['civil Procedure' 'corporations Law'] ['costs of Motions' 'discontinuance' 'leave to Proceed Against a Company Under S 440 D of the Corporations Law' 'concurrent Hearing of Proceedings']

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

Motions in Federal Court Proceedings / Determination of Remaining Costs Issues After Earlier Orders and Reasons for Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether M & S Butler Investments Pty Ltd and Mark Butler and Shauna Butler should pay the respondents' costs of the motion filed 4 November 1996 in QG 136 of 1996." 'Whether any costs order should be made in respect of the motion filed 24 February 1997 in QG 22 of 1997.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because the respondents' primary applications were substantively successful and the Stewarts had already paid the respondents' agreed costs following discontinuance, M & S Butler Investments Pty Ltd and Mark Butler and Shauna Butler were ordered to pay the respondents' costs of the motion filed 4 November 1996. In all the circumstances concerning the motion filed 24 February 1997, the appropriate order was no order as to costs.

Court Disposition

Costs orders made in respect of the motions filed 4 November 1996 and 24 February 1997.

Orders

  • ['In respect of the motion filed 4 November 1996 in proceedings QG 136 of 1996, M & S Butler Investments Pty Ltd and Mark Butler and Shauna Butler pay the costs of the respondents, those costs to be taxed if not agreed.' 'In respect of the motion filed 24 February 1997 in proceedings QG 22 of 1997, there be no order...