ASIC v Rich [2003] NSWSC 297

ASIC v Rich [2003] NSWSC 297

Because the plaintiff’s adoption and insistence on an untenable position regarding discovery obligations with respect to documents in the possession of third parties rendered the defendants’ application necessary, and because the defendants achieved substantial success through the resulting consent orders, the plaintiff should be ordered to pay the defendants’ costs of and incidental to the application incurred on and after 13 December 2002, including reimbursement for reasonable third-party costs. Further, these costs should be assessed and paid forthwith given the circumstances and rules pertaining to the Commercial List and interlocutory costs.

Parties
Plaintiff: Australian Securities and Investments Commission; First Defendant: John David Rich; Second Defendant: Bradley William Keeling; Third Defendant: John Huyshe Greaves; Fourth Defendant: Mark Allen Silberman
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 April 2003
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application (discovery/costs) in Ongoing Civil Proceeding / Costs Determination Following Consent Orders on Discovery Dispute
Outcome
Plaintiff ordered to pay the costs of the defendants’ application (from 13 December 2002 onwards), including reimbursement of certain third-party (Minter Ellison) costs; such costs to be assessed and paid forthwith.
Legal Topics
Discovery of Documents, Costs of Interlocutory Applications
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Discovery of Documents Costs of Interlocutory Applications

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Australian Securities and Investments Commission

Plaintiff

John David Rich

First Defendant

Bradley William Keeling

Second Defendant

John Huyshe Greaves

Third Defendant

Mark Allen Silberman

Fourth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application (discovery/costs) in Ongoing Civil Proceeding / Costs Determination Following Consent Orders on Discovery Dispute

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff should be ordered to pay the costs of the defendants’ interlocutory application regarding discovery issues
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff should reimburse the defendants for costs and expenses owed to a third party (Minter Ellison) resulting from the application

Ratio Decidendi

Because the plaintiff’s adoption and insistence on an untenable position regarding discovery obligations with respect to documents in the possession of third parties rendered the defendants’ application necessary, and because the defendants achieved substantial success through the resulting consent orders, the plaintiff should be ordered to pay the defendants’ costs of and incidental to the application incurred on and after 13 December 2002, including reimbursement for reasonable third-party costs. Further, these costs should be assessed and paid forthwith given the circumstances and rules pertaining to the Commercial List and interlocutory costs.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff ordered to pay the costs of the defendants’ application (from 13 December 2002 onwards), including reimbursement of certain third-party (Minter Ellison) costs; such costs to be assessed and paid forthwith.

Orders

  • Plaintiff to pay first and fourth defendants’ costs of and incidental to the interlocutory application, limited to costs incurred on and after 13 December 2002.
  • Plaintiff to reimburse the defendants for reasonable costs and expenses owing to Minter Ellison as a result of compliance with subpoena related to discovery issues.