Brien & 1 Ors v Australasian Memory & 1 Ors [2000] NSWSC 333

Brien & 1 Ors v Australasian Memory & 1 Ors [2000] NSWSC 333

Given that the Plaintiffs' actions were for the benefit of creditors, and that the Second Defendant was not a creditor nor acting in the public interest, the proper order is for costs to follow the event, and the Second Defendant should pay the Plaintiffs' costs. The general rule that a party seeking dispensation pays costs does not apply on these facts.

Parties
First Plaintiff: Richard Campbell Brien; Second Plaintiff: Steven Nicols; First Defendant: Australasian Memory Pty Limited ACN 003 636 324; Second Defendant: Barry Charles Amor; Plaintiff: Barry Charles Amor; Defendant: Australasian Memory Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 April 2000
Procedural Posture
Corporations — Equity / Application Regarding Costs Orders After Primary and Appellate Decisions, Pending High Court Appeal
Outcome
Second Defendant ordered to pay Plaintiffs' costs; operation of order stayed pending High Court appeal
Legal Topics
Cost Orders for Administrators, Administration of Insolvent Companies, Dispensation for Meetings Under the Corporations Law, Liquidation Proceedings
Corporations Law Cost Orders for Administrators Administration of Insolvent Companies Dispensation for Meetings Under the Corporations Law Liquidation 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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Richard Campbell Brien

First Plaintiff

Steven Nicols

Second Plaintiff

Australasian Memory Pty Limited ACN 003 636 324

First Defendant

Barry Charles Amor

Second Defendant

Barry Charles Amor

Plaintiff

Australasian Memory Pty Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Corporations — Equity / Application Regarding Costs Orders After Primary and Appellate Decisions, Pending High Court Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether administrators/Plaintiffs should have their costs paid given their successful application for dispensation and validation of their appointment as liquidators after irregular meeting timing
  2. 2 Appropriate party to bear costs of successful application for dispensation under s447A and/or s1322 of the Corporations Law

Ratio Decidendi

Given that the Plaintiffs' actions were for the benefit of creditors, and that the Second Defendant was not a creditor nor acting in the public interest, the proper order is for costs to follow the event, and the Second Defendant should pay the Plaintiffs' costs. The general rule that a party seeking dispensation pays costs does not apply on these facts.

Court Disposition

Second Defendant ordered to pay Plaintiffs' costs; operation of order stayed pending High Court appeal

Orders

  • The Second Defendant to pay to the Plaintiffs their costs of these proceedings.
  • The Second Defendant is ordered to pay (to the exclusion of the First Defendant) all legal costs payable to the legal representatives of the Defendants arising out of the conduct of these proceedings.