Legend Corporate Services Pty Limited & Anor v Rimes & Ors [2023] NSWSC 1526

Legend Corporate Services Pty Limited & Anor v Rimes & Ors [2023] NSWSC 1526

Because the preliminary discovery application was resolved by consent without a hearing on the merits and the limited evidence did not show that the plaintiffs or any defendants acted so or manifestly unreasonably, the proper exercise of the costs discretion was to make no order as to costs, with each party bearing its own costs of the preliminary discovery application including the costs application.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 December 2023
Procedural Posture
Application for Preliminary Discovery / Costs Determination After Preliminary Discovery Orders Were Made by Consent Without a Hearing on the Merits
Outcome
No order as to costs; each party to bear his or its own costs of the preliminary discovery application.
Legal Topics
['preliminary Discovery' 'party/party Costs' 'costs Discretion' 'no Hearing on the Merits' 'confidentiality Regime']
['civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['preliminary Discovery' 'party/party Costs' 'costs Discretion' 'no Hearing on the Merits' 'confidentiality Regime']

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

Application for Preliminary Discovery / Costs Determination After Preliminary Discovery Orders Were Made by Consent Without a Hearing on the Merits

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether, where preliminary discovery orders were made by consent and there was no hearing on the merits, there should be no order as to costs or the plaintiffs should pay the defendants' costs on the ordinary basis." 'Whether the plaintiffs acted so unreasonably before or during the preliminary discovery application that the defendants should obtain their costs.' "Whether the need for a binding confidentiality regime between trade competitors justified ordering the plaintiffs to pay the third defendant's costs."]

Ratio Decidendi

Because the preliminary discovery application was resolved by consent without a hearing on the merits and the limited evidence did not show that the plaintiffs or any defendants acted so or manifestly unreasonably, the proper exercise of the costs discretion was to make no order as to costs, with each party bearing its own costs of the preliminary discovery application including the costs application.

Court Disposition

No order as to costs; each party to bear his or its own costs of the preliminary discovery application.

Orders

  • ['There be no order as to costs to the intent that each party bear his or its own costs of the preliminary discovery application.' 'Order (1) above is made without prejudice to the right of any party to apply to the Court, if the plaintiff commences substantive proceedings against any or all of the defendants as a...