Soulos v Pagones; Soulos v Soulos; Soulos v Soulos; Soulos v Pagones; Kristallis v Soulos; Kristallis v Soulos; Kristallis v Pagones (No 2) [2023] NSWCA 274

Soulos v Pagones; Soulos v Soulos; Soulos v Soulos; Soulos v Pagones; Kristallis v Soulos; Kristallis v Soulos; Kristallis v Pagones (No 2) [2023] NSWCA 274

Although Maria failed on the SPH lease issue and did not obtain the primary winding up relief or uphold all relief granted below, the SPH lease issue was not dominant and Maria remained successful in obtaining relief for oppressive conduct concerning the acquisition of the Symond Arcade. In all the circumstances, her mixed success did not justify disturbing the first instance costs orders or depriving her of the costs of the Oppression Appeal. Esperia Court, having filed a submitting appearance save as to costs and not having been ordered below to pay another party's costs, should not be liable for Maria's appeal costs.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 November 2023
Procedural Posture
Costs Determination in Consolidated Appeals / On the Papers After Publication of Appeal Reasons
Outcome
No amendment to costs orders already made.
Legal Topics
['party/party Costs' 'costs Follow the Event' 'oppression Remedy' "directors' Duties" 'mixed Success on Appeal']
['costs' 'corporations Law' 'civil Procedure'] ['party/party Costs' 'costs Follow the Event' 'oppression Remedy' "directors' Duties" 'mixed Success on Appeal']

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 Consolidated Appeals / On the Papers After Publication of Appeal Reasons

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the costs orders made in the proceedings at first instance should be amended where Nick and John had some success in the Oppression Appeal.' "Whether Nick and John should pay Maria Pagones' costs of the Oppression Appeal despite succeeding on some issues." "Whether Esperia Court Pty Ltd should be ordered to pay any other party's costs of the appeal after filing a submitting appearance save as to costs."]

Ratio Decidendi

Although Maria failed on the SPH lease issue and did not obtain the primary winding up relief or uphold all relief granted below, the SPH lease issue was not dominant and Maria remained successful in obtaining relief for oppressive conduct concerning the acquisition of the Symond Arcade. In all the circumstances, her mixed success did not justify disturbing the first instance costs orders or depriving her of the costs of the Oppression Appeal. Esperia Court, having filed a submitting appearance save as to costs and not having been ordered below to pay another party's costs, should not be liable for Maria's appeal costs.

Court Disposition

No amendment to costs orders already made.

Orders

  • ['The costs orders already made require no amendment.' "Esperia Court Pty Ltd is not to be liable for Maria Pagones' costs of the appeal and bears its own costs of the proceedings at first instance."]