Chief Disruption Officer Pty Ltd as Trustee for the McDonald Family Trust v Michel, in the matter of Laava ID Pty Ltd [2022] FCA 148

Chief Disruption Officer Pty Ltd as Trustee for the McDonald Family Trust v Michel, in the matter of Laava ID Pty Ltd [2022] FCA 148

Separate determination of questions was refused due to inefficiency and lack of justification; applications for security for costs were granted as there was credible testimony that plaintiff could not pay and undertakings proffered were inadequate; quantum set per broad estimates, ordered by bank guarantee or payment into court. Usual costs order for amendments applied. Discovery of relevant remuneration documents ordered.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 February 2022
Procedural Posture
Corporations and Corporate Insolvency / Interlocutory Decision on Separate Questions, Security for Costs, Costs Orders, and Discovery
Outcome
Plaintiffs' application for separate questions refused; security for costs ordered against first plaintiff; costs orders as specified; discovery ordered; further timetable orders made.
Legal Topics
['separate Questions' 'security for Costs' 'costs Thrown Away' 'discovery' 'oppression Proceedings']
['practice and Procedure' 'corporations'] ['separate Questions' 'security for Costs' 'costs Thrown Away' 'discovery' 'oppression Proceedings']

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

Corporations and Corporate Insolvency / Interlocutory Decision on Separate Questions, Security for Costs, Costs Orders, and Discovery

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether to order separate determination of valuation, damages, and winding up questions under r 30.01 FCR' 'Whether to order security for costs against a corporate trustee plaintiff' 'Appropriate quantum and form of security for costs' 'Whether the fifth defendant is entitled to costs thrown away due to amendment' 'Whether discovery should be ordered of remuneration documents']

Ratio Decidendi

Separate determination of questions was refused due to inefficiency and lack of justification; applications for security for costs were granted as there was credible testimony that plaintiff could not pay and undertakings proffered were inadequate; quantum set per broad estimates, ordered by bank guarantee or payment into court. Usual costs order for amendments applied. Discovery of relevant remuneration documents ordered.

Court Disposition

Plaintiffs' application for separate questions refused; security for costs ordered against first plaintiff; costs orders as specified; discovery ordered; further timetable orders made.

Orders

  • ['Refused application for separate questions determination (Order 1)' "Ordered plaintiffs to pay first to fifth defendants' costs of application (Order 2)" 'Ordered first plaintiff to provide security for first to fourth defendants’ costs of $275,000 by payment into court or bank guarantee, or proceedings stayed as...