Nature’s Care Holdings Pty Ltd v Chen (No 6) [2024] NSWSC 604

Nature’s Care Holdings Pty Ltd v Chen (No 6) [2024] NSWSC 604

The order made on 15 February 2024 dismissed the plaintiffs' application for an injunction to restrain the defendants from enforcing rights under the Syndicated Facility Agreement. Although an interim injunction had been made by Rees J and Stevenson J refused to continue it, what was dismissed was the entirety of the plaintiffs' application, not merely an application to extend the interim injunction. The costs orders therefore extended to the defendants' costs of and incidental to the plaintiffs' interlocutory application, together with the specified notice to produce application and notices of motion.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 May 2024
Procedural Posture
Costs; Third Party Costs Order / On the Papers; Dispute as to Scope of Costs Orders Following Judgment of 11 April 2024
Outcome
Costs orders made in favour of the defendants; plaintiffs, JIC and Tamar ordered to pay specified costs jointly and severally, and JIC and Tamar ordered to pay costs of the defendants' notices of motion.
Legal Topics
['third Party Costs Order' 'scope of Costs Order' 'interlocutory Injunction Costs' 'notices of Motion']
['costs' 'equity Commercial List'] ['third Party Costs Order' 'scope of Costs Order' 'interlocutory Injunction Costs' 'notices of Motion']

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; Third Party Costs Order / On the Papers; Dispute as to Scope of Costs Orders Following Judgment of 11 April 2024

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the costs orders made on 15 February 2024 and varied following the judgment of 11 April 2024 extended to the first, second and third defendants' costs of the plaintiffs' unsuccessful application for an injunction from filing on 19 January 2024 until dismissal on 15 February 2024, or only to costs incidental to the hearing to continue the interim injunction granted on 23 January 2024." "Whether JIC and Tamar should pay the defendants' costs of the notices of motion heard on 12 March 2024 and 3 April 2024."]

Ratio Decidendi

The order made on 15 February 2024 dismissed the plaintiffs' application for an injunction to restrain the defendants from enforcing rights under the Syndicated Facility Agreement. Although an interim injunction had been made by Rees J and Stevenson J refused to continue it, what was dismissed was the entirety of the plaintiffs' application, not merely an application to extend the interim injunction. The costs orders therefore extended to the defendants' costs of and incidental to the plaintiffs' interlocutory application, together with the specified notice to produce application and notices of motion.

Court Disposition

Costs orders made in favour of the defendants; plaintiffs, JIC and Tamar ordered to pay specified costs jointly and severally, and JIC and Tamar ordered to pay costs of the defendants' notices of motion.

Orders

  • ["The costs of the first, second and third defendants of and incidental to the plaintiffs' application for interlocutory orders sought in paragraphs 10 to 15 of the Second Further Amended Summons dated 3 February 2024 (and all earlier versions), and the costs of the third defendant of and incidental to the...