Reeve v Aqualast Pty Ltd (No 2) [2012] FCA 791

Reeve v Aqualast Pty Ltd (No 2) [2012] FCA 791

Although the applicant was successful in obtaining preliminary discovery, the overall lack of success and the breadth of the application justified an order that the applicant pay the respondents' costs, with the exception of the costs incurred for the arrangements for cross-examination, which should be borne by certain respondents due to the late withdrawal of the requirement.

Parties
Prospective Applicant: Lloyd Reeve; First Prospective Respondent: Aqualast Pty Ltd (ACN 137 316 888); Second Prospective Respondent: Ultralast Manufacturing Pty Ltd (ACN 139 587 242); Third Prospective Respondent: Ultralast International Pty Ltd (ACN 137 334 706); Fourth Prospective Respondent: Ultralast Holdings Pty Ltd (ACN 146 101 386); Fifth Prospective Respondent: Greenguard Pty Ltd (ACN 147 950 098); Sixth Prospective Respondent: Alphalast Pty Ltd (ACN 140 791 644); Seventh Prospective Respondent: Alphalast Global Pty Ltd (ACN 152 564 200); Eighth Prospective Respondent: Eco Globalgen Pty Ltd (ACN 152 594 628); Ninth Prospective Respondent: Maher (aka Mark) Joseph, aka Joseph Maher; Tenth Prospective Respondent: Steven Nikolovski
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 July 2012
Procedural Posture
Application for Preliminary Discovery / Determination of Costs and Other Consequential Orders After Judgment on Preliminary Discovery
Outcome
Application for preliminary discovery already granted; these are costs and consequential orders.
Legal Topics
Preliminary Discovery, Costs Orders
Civil Procedure Preliminary Discovery Costs Orders

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lloyd Reeve

Prospective Applicant

Aqualast Pty Ltd (ACN 137 316 888)

First Prospective Respondent

Ultralast Manufacturing Pty Ltd (ACN 139 587 242)

Second Prospective Respondent

Ultralast International Pty Ltd (ACN 137 334 706)

Third Prospective Respondent

Ultralast Holdings Pty Ltd (ACN 146 101 386)

Fourth Prospective Respondent

Greenguard Pty Ltd (ACN 147 950 098)

Fifth Prospective Respondent

Alphalast Pty Ltd (ACN 140 791 644)

Sixth Prospective Respondent

Alphalast Global Pty Ltd (ACN 152 564 200)

Seventh Prospective Respondent

Eco Globalgen Pty Ltd (ACN 152 594 628)

Eighth Prospective Respondent

Maher (aka Mark) Joseph, aka Joseph Maher

Ninth Prospective Respondent

Steven Nikolovski

Tenth Prospective Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Preliminary Discovery / Determination of Costs and Other Consequential Orders After Judgment on Preliminary Discovery

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Appropriate costs orders following application for preliminary discovery
  2. 2 Whether security for costs or venue orders should be made
  3. 3 Responsibility for costs of foreshadowed cross-examination

Ratio Decidendi

Although the applicant was successful in obtaining preliminary discovery, the overall lack of success and the breadth of the application justified an order that the applicant pay the respondents' costs, with the exception of the costs incurred for the arrangements for cross-examination, which should be borne by certain respondents due to the late withdrawal of the requirement.

Court Disposition

Application for preliminary discovery already granted; these are costs and consequential orders.

Orders

  • Subject to order 2, the prospective applicant pay the prospective respondents' costs of the application for preliminary discovery as well as their costs of giving discovery and producing the discovered documents for inspection.
  • The fourth, sixth, seventh, eighth and tenth prospective respondents pay the prospective applicant's costs of and incidental to making arrangements for his foreshadowed cross-examination that was to be conducted by video conference.