Street, Stanley & Ors v Retravision NSW Ltd [1995] FCA 1013

Street, Stanley & Ors v Retravision NSW Ltd [1995] FCA 1013

The fourth declaration depended on the applicants having an entitlement to $2,134,375.33, but consistently with Gummow J's earlier decision on the separate question that entitlement did not exist. The applicants had notice of the motion, filed a notice of discontinuance and did not appear, so the proceedings should be dismissed. The circumstances did not justify indemnity costs, so costs were ordered on an ordinary party-party basis, and the motion for costs against the applicants' solicitors was not pressed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 June 1995
Procedural Posture
Bankruptcy Proceedings; Application for Declarations Under S592 of the Corporations Law / Reasons for Judgment on Motion to Dismiss Proceedings and for Costs
Outcome
Proceedings dismissed; respondents awarded ordinary party-party costs; indemnity costs refused; motion for costs against the applicants' solicitors not pressed.
Legal Topics
['declarations' 'liability Under S592 of the Corporations Law' 'separate Questions of Law' 'dismissal of Proceedings' 'indemnity Costs' 'party Party Costs']
['bankruptcy' 'corporations Law' 'civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['declarations' 'liability Under S592 of the Corporations Law' 'separate Questions of Law' 'dismissal of Proceedings' 'indemnity Costs' 'party Party 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

Bankruptcy Proceedings; Application for Declarations Under S592 of the Corporations Law / Reasons for Judgment on Motion to Dismiss Proceedings and for Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the proceedings should be dismissed after the separate question of law was answered in the negative and the applicants filed a notice of discontinuance and did not appear.' 'Whether costs should be ordered against the applicants on an indemnity basis or on an ordinary party-party basis.' "Whether costs should be ordered against the applicants' solicitors."]

Ratio Decidendi

The fourth declaration depended on the applicants having an entitlement to $2,134,375.33, but consistently with Gummow J's earlier decision on the separate question that entitlement did not exist. The applicants had notice of the motion, filed a notice of discontinuance and did not appear, so the proceedings should be dismissed. The circumstances did not justify indemnity costs, so costs were ordered on an ordinary party-party basis, and the motion for costs against the applicants' solicitors was not pressed.

Court Disposition

Proceedings dismissed; respondents awarded ordinary party-party costs; indemnity costs refused; motion for costs against the applicants' solicitors not pressed.

Orders

  • ["The applicants are to pay the respondents' costs of the proceedings, including the costs of the motion, on an ordinary party-to-party basis."]