BCEG Australia v Yu Xiao & Ors [2020] NSWSC 1234

BCEG Australia v Yu Xiao & Ors [2020] NSWSC 1234

The appropriate costs order was that the costs of the plaintiff's notice of motion be the plaintiff's costs in the cause because the motion was necessary and in substance achieved the delivery of a Response without the vices of the original, although BCEG did not obtain the precise strike-out and pleading orders sought and conceded that the defendants had shown a real and appreciable risk of prosecution or exposure to civil penalty.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 September 2020
Procedural Posture
Equity Commercial List / Costs of the Plaintiff's Notice of Motion of 18 February 2020, Determined on the Papers
Outcome
Costs of the plaintiff's notice of motion of 18 February 2020 to be the plaintiff's costs in the cause; defendants to pay the plaintiff's costs thrown away by reason of the amendment of the Commercial List Response.
Legal Topics
['costs of Motion' 'list Response' 'privilege Against Self Incrimination' 'privilege Against Exposure to Civil Penalties' 'amendment of Commercial List Response']
['costs' 'civil Procedure' 'equity Commercial List'] ['costs of Motion' 'list Response' 'privilege Against Self Incrimination' 'privilege Against Exposure to Civil Penalties' 'amendment of Commercial List Response']

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

Equity Commercial List / Costs of the Plaintiff's Notice of Motion of 18 February 2020, Determined on the Papers

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the defendants' Commercial List Response inadequately invoked privilege against self-incrimination and exposure to civil penalties on a global basis rather than contention by contention." "Whether the plaintiff's motion was necessary and what costs order should be made after the defendants were granted leave to file an Amended Response."]

Ratio Decidendi

The appropriate costs order was that the costs of the plaintiff's notice of motion be the plaintiff's costs in the cause because the motion was necessary and in substance achieved the delivery of a Response without the vices of the original, although BCEG did not obtain the precise strike-out and pleading orders sought and conceded that the defendants had shown a real and appreciable risk of prosecution or exposure to civil penalty.

Court Disposition

Costs of the plaintiff's notice of motion of 18 February 2020 to be the plaintiff's costs in the cause; defendants to pay the plaintiff's costs thrown away by reason of the amendment of the Commercial List Response.

Orders

  • ["The defendants pay the plaintiff's costs thrown away by reason of the defendants' amendment of the Commercial List Response." "The costs of the plaintiff's notice of motion of 18 February 2020 be the plaintiff's costs in the cause."]