Peter Krejci in his capacity as liquidator of ENA Development Pty Ltd v EJADA Office Automation-EOA Pty Ltd [2024] NSWSC 1122

Peter Krejci in his capacity as liquidator of ENA Development Pty Ltd v EJADA Office Automation-EOA Pty Ltd [2024] NSWSC 1122

The plaintiffs' application was granted because EJADA's purported submissions disclosed no reasoned opposition, there was nothing left to transfer to the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, and the plaintiffs' detailed evidence established that $14,000 (GST inc) was a fair gross sum for costs previously ordered on the indemnity basis, especially given the modest amount and likely disproportionate cost of formal assessment.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 September 2024
Procedural Posture
Costs Application Following Proceedings for Withdrawal of a Caveat and Restraint on Lodging Further Caveats / On the Papers After Final Relief Had Been Granted; Application for Gross Sum Assessment of Indemnity Costs
Outcome
The plaintiffs' application for gross sum costs was granted.
Legal Topics
['party/party Costs' 'indemnity Costs' 'gross Sum Costs Assessment' 'caveats' 'transfer to Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia']
['civil Procedure' 'costs' 'property Law'] ['party/party Costs' 'indemnity Costs' 'gross Sum Costs Assessment' 'caveats' 'transfer to Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia']

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 Following Proceedings for Withdrawal of a Caveat and Restraint on Lodging Further Caveats / On the Papers After Final Relief Had Been Granted; Application for Gross Sum Assessment of Indemnity Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the plaintiffs' indemnity costs should be assessed in a gross sum of $14,000 (GST inc)." "Whether EJADA's purported submissions or request to transfer the proceedings to the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia provided any basis to refuse the costs application."]

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiffs' application was granted because EJADA's purported submissions disclosed no reasoned opposition, there was nothing left to transfer to the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, and the plaintiffs' detailed evidence established that $14,000 (GST inc) was a fair gross sum for costs previously ordered on the indemnity basis, especially given the modest amount and likely disproportionate cost of formal assessment.

Court Disposition

The plaintiffs' application for gross sum costs was granted.

Orders

  • ["The first defendant is to pay the plaintiffs' costs of the proceedings assessed in the gross sum of $14,000 (GST inc)."]