Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Australian Property Custodian Holdings Ltd (Receivers and Managers Appointed) (in liquidation) (Controllers Appointed) (No 2) [2012] FCA 1077

Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Australian Property Custodian Holdings Ltd (Receivers and Managers Appointed) (in liquidation) (Controllers Appointed) (No 2) [2012] FCA 1077

Although ASIC was not to be penalised for commencing in the Federal Court, the transfer application was not inappropriate or misconceived and had a proper basis, so the proper exercise of the costs discretion was to make the costs of that application costs in the cause. A trial date of 1 May 2013 was appropriate, subject to ASIC serving evidence in sufficient time to allow the defendants properly to prepare and present their defences.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 October 2012
Procedural Posture
Penalty Proceeding / Costs of Dismissed Transfer Application, Fixing Trial Date and Case Management Directions
Outcome
Costs of the transfer application ordered to be costs in the cause; trial fixed for 1 May 2013 on an estimate of four weeks.
Legal Topics
['costs' 'transfer of Proceedings' 'trial Listing' 'case Management' 'parallel Proceedings']
['civil Procedure' 'corporations Law'] ['costs' 'transfer of Proceedings' 'trial Listing' 'case Management' 'parallel 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

Penalty Proceeding / Costs of Dismissed Transfer Application, Fixing Trial Date and Case Management Directions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the second to sixth defendants should jointly pay ASIC's costs of the unsuccessful application to transfer the proceeding to the Supreme Court of Victoria or whether costs should be costs in the cause." 'Whether the proceeding should be fixed for trial on 4 April 2013, in the first half of May 2013, September 2013, or another date.' 'How directions hearings in this proceeding and the Supreme Court Compensation Proceeding should be managed to reduce expense and wasted time.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although ASIC was not to be penalised for commencing in the Federal Court, the transfer application was not inappropriate or misconceived and had a proper basis, so the proper exercise of the costs discretion was to make the costs of that application costs in the cause. A trial date of 1 May 2013 was appropriate, subject to ASIC serving evidence in sufficient time to allow the defendants properly to prepare and present their defences.

Court Disposition

Costs of the transfer application ordered to be costs in the cause; trial fixed for 1 May 2013 on an estimate of four weeks.

Orders

  • ['The costs of the application to transfer the proceeding to the Supreme Court be costs in the cause.' 'The trial date is fixed on 1 May 2013, on an estimate of four weeks.']