Peter Kazacos v Shuangling International Development Pty Limited [2016] NSWSC 1725

Peter Kazacos v Shuangling International Development Pty Limited [2016] NSWSC 1725

CLGC was not totally removed from the ambit of the litigation because it was involved in the transaction by which Shuangling's property went into CLGC's hands, and Darke J had found a serious issue to be tried supporting the freezing orders. Although the plaintiffs should pay CLGC's costs, those circumstances did not justify indemnity costs. The appropriate and just order was that the plaintiffs pay CLGC's relevant costs on a party/party basis.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 November 2016
Procedural Posture
Costs Application Concerning Freezing Orders / After Dismissal of the Plaintiffs' Claims in the Main Proceedings and Discharge of Freezing Orders
Outcome
Plaintiffs ordered to pay CLGC's costs on a party/party basis; indemnity costs refused.
Legal Topics
['freezing Orders' 'mareva Injunctions' 'innocent Third Party Costs' 'indemnity Costs' 'party/party Costs']
['civil Procedure' 'costs' 'equity'] ['freezing Orders' 'mareva Injunctions' 'innocent Third Party Costs' '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

Costs Application Concerning Freezing Orders / After Dismissal of the Plaintiffs' Claims in the Main Proceedings and Discharge of Freezing Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether CLGC was an innocent third party for the purpose of costs following freezing orders made against it.' "Whether CLGC's costs of the freezing order applications, the pleading amendment hearing, the 2 November 2016 motion, and the hearing should be paid by the plaintiffs." 'Whether those costs should be awarded on an indemnity basis or on a party/party basis.']

Ratio Decidendi

CLGC was not totally removed from the ambit of the litigation because it was involved in the transaction by which Shuangling's property went into CLGC's hands, and Darke J had found a serious issue to be tried supporting the freezing orders. Although the plaintiffs should pay CLGC's costs, those circumstances did not justify indemnity costs. The appropriate and just order was that the plaintiffs pay CLGC's relevant costs on a party/party basis.

Court Disposition

Plaintiffs ordered to pay CLGC's costs on a party/party basis; indemnity costs refused.

Orders

  • ["The plaintiffs are to pay CLGC's costs of the Notices of Motion of 15 May 2015 and 12 June 2015 and the hearings in respect of those Motions on a party/party basis." "By consent, the plaintiffs are to pay CLGC's costs of the hearing on 18 September 2015 on a party/party basis." "The plaintiffs are to pay CLGC's...