Woodgate v M J Leonard Pty Ltd [2006] NSWSC 783

Woodgate v M J Leonard Pty Ltd [2006] NSWSC 783

There was no basis to depart from the usual position that costs lie where they fall as between the plaintiffs and the first defendant because the first defendant did not defend, submitted to consent orders, and its conduct before and after the orders was not sufficiently unreasonable. Although the plaintiffs would very likely have succeeded on the claims as made for 'books' under the Corporations Act, the earlier pre-action demands were unacceptably wide. The second defendant accepted incomplete compliance and did not oppose a costs order, but his conduct did not warrant indemnity costs.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 August 2006
Procedural Posture
Corporations List Proceedings by an Administrator Seeking Delivery Up of Company Books and Records / Determination of Costs After Consent Orders for Delivery of Documents and Where the Only Remaining Issue Was Costs
Outcome
Second defendant ordered to pay the plaintiffs' costs of the claims brought against him; no order as to costs between the plaintiffs and the first defendant.
Legal Topics
['costs Where No Determination on the Merits' 'delivery Up of Company Books and Records' 'administrators Under Part 5.3 a of the Corporations Act' 'indemnity Costs']
['civil Procedure' 'corporations'] ['costs Where No Determination on the Merits' 'delivery Up of Company Books and Records' 'administrators Under Part 5.3 a of the Corporations Act' 'indemnity Costs']

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 List Proceedings by an Administrator Seeking Delivery Up of Company Books and Records / Determination of Costs After Consent Orders for Delivery of Documents and Where the Only Remaining Issue Was Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether, where there had been no determination on the merits, costs should lie where they fell as between the plaintiffs and the first defendant.' 'Whether the first defendant acted so unreasonably that the plaintiffs should obtain a costs order against it.' "Whether the second defendant should pay the plaintiffs' costs and whether those costs should be assessed on the indemnity basis."]

Ratio Decidendi

There was no basis to depart from the usual position that costs lie where they fall as between the plaintiffs and the first defendant because the first defendant did not defend, submitted to consent orders, and its conduct before and after the orders was not sufficiently unreasonable. Although the plaintiffs would very likely have succeeded on the claims as made for 'books' under the Corporations Act, the earlier pre-action demands were unacceptably wide. The second defendant accepted incomplete compliance and did not oppose a costs order, but his conduct did not warrant indemnity costs.

Court Disposition

Second defendant ordered to pay the plaintiffs' costs of the claims brought against him; no order as to costs between the plaintiffs and the first defendant.

Orders

  • ["The second defendant pay the plaintiffs' costs of the proceedings insofar as they are costs of the claims brought against the second defendant." 'No order as to costs between the plaintiffs and the first defendant.']