The Trust Company Ltd as custodian for the Ardent Leisure Trust v AMF Bowling Worldwide Inc [2018] NSWSC 1098

The Trust Company Ltd as custodian for the Ardent Leisure Trust v AMF Bowling Worldwide Inc [2018] NSWSC 1098

No further costs order beyond the costs thrown away by the vacation of the hearing is appropriate because the plaintiffs acted responsibly, the issues remain live, and the defendant has not established justification for indemnity costs or a lump sum order.

Parties
First Plaintiff / Respondent: The Trust Company Ltd (as custodian for the Ardent Leisure Trust) ACN 004 027 749; Second Plaintiff: Bowling Centres Australia Pty Ltd ACN 003 710 110; Defendant / Applicant: AMF Bowling Worldwide Inc
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 July 2018
Procedural Posture
Commercial List Proceedings (equity) / Costs Application Following Vacation of Hearing
Outcome
Defendant's applications for indemnity costs and gross lump sum costs order refused.
Legal Topics
Indemnity Costs Application, Gross Lump Sum Costs, Vacation of Trial Date, Commercial Dispute Procedure
Costs Equity Commercial Law Indemnity Costs Application Gross Lump Sum Costs Vacation of Trial Date Commercial Dispute Procedure

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Trust Company Ltd (as custodian for the Ardent Leisure Trust) ACN 004 027 749

First Plaintiff / Respondent

Bowling Centres Australia Pty Ltd ACN 003 710 110

Second Plaintiff

AMF Bowling Worldwide Inc

Defendant / Applicant

Procedural Posture

Commercial List Proceedings (equity) / Costs Application Following Vacation of Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant should receive indemnity costs for the proceedings to date
  2. 2 Whether a gross lump sum costs order should be made

Ratio Decidendi

No further costs order beyond the costs thrown away by the vacation of the hearing is appropriate because the plaintiffs acted responsibly, the issues remain live, and the defendant has not established justification for indemnity costs or a lump sum order.

Court Disposition

Defendant's applications for indemnity costs and gross lump sum costs order refused.

Orders

  • No order beyond previous order that plaintiffs pay costs thrown away by vacation of the hearing. Costs to be assessable and payable forthwith.
  • Defendant's applications dismissed.