Infocus Tax and Business Advisory Pty Ltd v Andrews (No 4) [2021] NSWSC 1638

Infocus Tax and Business Advisory Pty Ltd v Andrews (No 4) [2021] NSWSC 1638

The plaintiffs were ordered to pay the defendants' costs of the security for costs applications because the defendants succeeded, the plaintiffs had declared they could not meet adverse costs orders, the case for security was clear, and the resistance to conventional security was for the commercial benefit of Infocus Wealth. The costs of Ben Andrews' separate question application were ordered to be costs in the cause limited to the clause 12 issue because the application was initially reasonable and directed to a potentially complete defence, but it ceased to be pressed after delays and complexity caused by the pleadings; justice required the costs to depend on whether the clause 12...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 December 2021
Procedural Posture
Costs in Interlocutory Proceedings / On the Papers After Determination of Notices of Motion for Security for Costs and Separate Question
Outcome
The Court made costs orders for the security for costs notices of motion and for the first defendant's separate question notice of motion.
Legal Topics
['party/party Costs' 'costs Follow the Event' 'security for Costs' 'costs in the Cause' 'separate Question' 'contractual Release and Promise Not to Sue']
['civil Procedure' 'costs' 'equity'] ['party/party Costs' 'costs Follow the Event' 'security for Costs' 'costs in the Cause' 'separate Question' 'contractual Release and Promise Not to Sue']

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 in Interlocutory Proceedings / On the Papers After Determination of Notices of Motion for Security for Costs and Separate Question

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the plaintiffs should pay the defendants' costs of successful notices of motion seeking security for costs, or whether those costs should be costs in the cause or reserved." "What costs order should be made for the first defendant's notice of motion seeking determination as a separate question of the effect of clause 12 of the share sale agreement dated 1 July 2019." 'Whether there should be any costs order between the plaintiffs and the second and third defendants in respect of the separate question notice of motion.']

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiffs were ordered to pay the defendants' costs of the security for costs applications because the defendants succeeded, the plaintiffs had declared they could not meet adverse costs orders, the case for security was clear, and the resistance to conventional security was for the commercial benefit of Infocus Wealth. The costs of Ben Andrews' separate question application were ordered to be costs in the cause limited to the clause 12 issue because the application was initially reasonable and directed to a potentially complete defence, but it ceased to be pressed after delays and complexity caused by the pleadings; justice required the costs to depend on whether the clause 12...

Court Disposition

The Court made costs orders for the security for costs notices of motion and for the first defendant's separate question notice of motion.

Orders

  • ["The plaintiffs are ordered to pay the defendants' costs of their notices of motion seeking orders for the provision by the plaintiffs of security for the defendants' costs of the proceedings." "The costs of the plaintiffs and the first defendant of the first defendant's notice of motion seeking an order for the...