Puddick v Dyamond Developments Pty Ltd (No 2) [2019] NSWSC 738

Puddick v Dyamond Developments Pty Ltd (No 2) [2019] NSWSC 738

Because the parties litigated whether the transfer of 19,500,000 Pacifico Minerals Ltd shares from the first defendant to the third defendant was for consideration, and the principal judgment found it was for nil consideration, s 90(1) of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) justified a limited declaration that the transfer was for no consideration. A broader trust declaration was not appropriate because the effectiveness of the transfer to convey beneficial title was not pleaded or addressed. Indemnity costs were refused because the defendants' conduct giving rise to the proceedings, including alleged breaches of trust or involvement in them, could not of itself justify indemnity costs,...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 June 2019
Procedural Posture
Equity Proceedings Concerning Consequential Orders and Costs / Consequential Orders After Judgment
Outcome
Limited declaration made; indemnity costs refused; defendants ordered to pay plaintiffs' costs on the ordinary basis.
Legal Topics
['declaratory Relief' 'resulting Trust' 'transfer of Shares for No Consideration' 'indemnity Costs' 'ordinary Basis Costs']
['equity' 'civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['declaratory Relief' 'resulting Trust' 'transfer of Shares for No Consideration' 'indemnity Costs' 'ordinary Basis 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

Equity Proceedings Concerning Consequential Orders and Costs / Consequential Orders After Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Court should declare that the third defendant holds 19,500,000 shares in Pacifico Minerals Ltd, or their value, on trust for the first defendant.' 'Whether the Court should make a declaration concerning the transfer of shares where that precise declaration was not pleaded but the issue of consideration was litigated.' "Whether the plaintiffs' costs should be payable forthwith on an indemnity basis or on the ordinary basis."]

Ratio Decidendi

Because the parties litigated whether the transfer of 19,500,000 Pacifico Minerals Ltd shares from the first defendant to the third defendant was for consideration, and the principal judgment found it was for nil consideration, s 90(1) of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) justified a limited declaration that the transfer was for no consideration. A broader trust declaration was not appropriate because the effectiveness of the transfer to convey beneficial title was not pleaded or addressed. Indemnity costs were refused because the defendants' conduct giving rise to the proceedings, including alleged breaches of trust or involvement in them, could not of itself justify indemnity costs,...

Court Disposition

Limited declaration made; indemnity costs refused; defendants ordered to pay plaintiffs' costs on the ordinary basis.

Orders

  • ['Declare that the transfer by the first defendant to the third defendant of 19,500,000 shares in Pacifico Minerals Ltd was for no consideration.' "Order the defendants to pay the plaintiffs' costs of the proceedings on the ordinary basis."]