Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Krecichwost & Ors [2008] NSWSC 855

Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Krecichwost & Ors [2008] NSWSC 855

When ASIC obtains a s 1323 ex parte order to aid its investigation and later allows the order to lapse without mounting a case, and the defendant acts reasonably without contest, ASIC should pay the costs incurred by the defendant in responding and attending court.

Parties
Plaintiff: Australian Securities and Investments Commission; 8th Defendant: Kaye Gallie
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 August 2008
Procedural Posture
Corporations Application Under S 1323 / Costs Judgment Following Lapse of Orders
Outcome
Plaintiff to pay the costs of the 8th defendant
Legal Topics
Costs, Freezing Orders, Asset Preservation, Ex Parte Orders
Corporations Law Civil Procedure Costs Freezing Orders Asset Preservation Ex Parte 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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Australian Securities and Investments Commission

Plaintiff

Kaye Gallie

8th Defendant

Procedural Posture

Corporations Application Under S 1323 / Costs Judgment Following Lapse of Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether ASIC should pay the costs of the 8th defendant when a s 1323 Corporations Act order obtained ex parte was later allowed to lapse

Ratio Decidendi

When ASIC obtains a s 1323 ex parte order to aid its investigation and later allows the order to lapse without mounting a case, and the defendant acts reasonably without contest, ASIC should pay the costs incurred by the defendant in responding and attending court.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff to pay the costs of the 8th defendant

Orders

  • ASIC to pay the costs of the 8th defendant (Kaye Gallie) of these proceedings