Zafiropoulos v Fragogianis [2024] NSWSC 309

Zafiropoulos v Fragogianis [2024] NSWSC 309

Because the applicants abandoned the interlocutory application on the day of the hearing and had pursued freezing orders without direct evidence of dissipation, relying on suppositions they did not test, costs followed the event under UCPR r 42.1 and the applicants were required to pay the respondents' costs. The application was a discrete aspect of the proceedings and final determination was some distance away, justifying an order that the applicants pay $26,000 on account of that costs liability.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 March 2024
Procedural Posture
Costs Concerning Interlocutory Application for Asset Preservation Orders/freezing Orders / Application Abandoned Following Service of Respondents' Evidence; Costs Determined After Consent Dismissal of the Notice of Motion
Outcome
Notice of Motion filed 22 February 2024 dismissed; applicants ordered to pay respondents' costs and $26,000 on account of that costs liability; freezing orders discharged.
Legal Topics
['interlocutory Costs' 'asset Preservation Orders' 'freezing Orders' 'ex Parte Orders' 'third Party Freezing Orders' 'lump Sum Costs' 'costs Payable Forthwith']
['civil Procedure' 'costs' 'equity'] ['interlocutory Costs' 'asset Preservation Orders' 'freezing Orders' 'ex Parte Orders' 'third Party Freezing Orders' 'lump Sum Costs' 'costs Payable Forthwith']

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 Concerning Interlocutory Application for Asset Preservation Orders/freezing Orders / Application Abandoned Following Service of Respondents' Evidence; Costs Determined After Consent Dismissal of the Notice of Motion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicants or respondents should pay the costs of the abandoned application for asset preservation/freezing orders.' 'Whether the application for freezing orders, including against a third party, was reasonably brought.' 'Whether a lump sum costs order or a lump sum on account of costs liability should be made.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because the applicants abandoned the interlocutory application on the day of the hearing and had pursued freezing orders without direct evidence of dissipation, relying on suppositions they did not test, costs followed the event under UCPR r 42.1 and the applicants were required to pay the respondents' costs. The application was a discrete aspect of the proceedings and final determination was some distance away, justifying an order that the applicants pay $26,000 on account of that costs liability.

Court Disposition

Notice of Motion filed 22 February 2024 dismissed; applicants ordered to pay respondents' costs and $26,000 on account of that costs liability; freezing orders discharged.

Orders

  • ['Order that the Notice of Motion filed 22 February 2024 be dismissed.' "Order that the applicants pay the respondents' costs of the motion." 'Order that the applicants pay to the respondents within 28 days, the sum of $26,000 on account of the cost liability under order 2.' 'The freezing orders made by the Court on...