In the matter of Matcove Pty Limited [2020] NSWSC 897

In the matter of Matcove Pty Limited [2020] NSWSC 897

Costs should be ordered only against the First Plaintiff because he was the only active Plaintiff and the Relevant Defendants accepted that course. The First Plaintiff conceded indemnity costs up to 26 April 2019. Indemnity costs after that date were not justified because the proceedings involved complex factual and legal issues and the Plaintiffs' claims were not shown to be so hopeless or unreasonable as to involve relevant delinquency. The 15 October 2019 offer did not justify indemnity costs because it required acceptance of detailed arrangements concerning the sale of Lot 1 and liquidation of the Company that went beyond the matters in issue, so it was not shown to be unreasonable...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 July 2020
Procedural Posture
Costs Determination in Equity Corporations List Proceedings / After Principal Judgment Dismissing the Plaintiffs' Claims
Outcome
Proceedings dismissed. The First Plaintiff was ordered to pay the First, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Defendants' costs on an indemnity basis up to and inclusive of 26 April 2019 and on an ordinary basis after 26 April 2019, with no costs order against the Second, Third or Fourth Plaintiffs.
Legal Topics
['party/party Costs' 'indemnity Costs' 'ordinary Basis Costs' 'multiple Plaintiffs' 'calderbank Offer' 'personal Property Securities Act 2009 (cth)']
['costs' 'civil Procedure' 'corporations'] ['party/party Costs' 'indemnity Costs' 'ordinary Basis Costs' 'multiple Plaintiffs' 'calderbank Offer' 'personal Property Securities Act 2009 (cth)']

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 Determination in Equity Corporations List Proceedings / After Principal Judgment Dismissing the Plaintiffs' Claims

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether costs orders should be made against the First Plaintiff alone rather than against the other Plaintiffs.' 'Whether costs up to and inclusive of 26 April 2019 should be ordered on an indemnity basis.' 'Whether costs after 26 April 2019 should be ordered on an ordinary basis or an indemnity basis.' "Whether the Plaintiffs' case after amendment was hopeless or unreasonable so as to justify indemnity costs." "Whether it was unreasonable for Mr Fuller not to accept the Relevant Defendants' offer dated 15 October 2019 so as to justify indemnity costs."]

Ratio Decidendi

Costs should be ordered only against the First Plaintiff because he was the only active Plaintiff and the Relevant Defendants accepted that course. The First Plaintiff conceded indemnity costs up to 26 April 2019. Indemnity costs after that date were not justified because the proceedings involved complex factual and legal issues and the Plaintiffs' claims were not shown to be so hopeless or unreasonable as to involve relevant delinquency. The 15 October 2019 offer did not justify indemnity costs because it required acceptance of detailed arrangements concerning the sale of Lot 1 and liquidation of the Company that went beyond the matters in issue, so it was not shown to be unreasonable...

Court Disposition

Proceedings dismissed. The First Plaintiff was ordered to pay the First, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Defendants' costs on an indemnity basis up to and inclusive of 26 April 2019 and on an ordinary basis after 26 April 2019, with no costs order against the Second, Third or Fourth Plaintiffs.

Orders

  • ['The Sixth Defendant be released from her obligations with respect to the undertaking provided to the First Plaintiff on 30 May 2019.' 'The proceedings otherwise be dismissed.' "The First Plaintiff pay the First, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Defendants' costs of the proceedings on an indemnity basis up to and inclusive...