Corsecure Pty Limited & Anor v Kaldor & Ors [2003] NSWSC 179

Corsecure Pty Limited & Anor v Kaldor & Ors [2003] NSWSC 179

Higgins should not be relieved from the general costs order because, although some relief concerned obligations owed to Corsecure, the proceedings as a whole were for his benefit: if successful, Corsecure would have obtained the CyberGuard arrangements and Higgins would have been, as against the defendants, the only shareholder of Corsecure. The defendants were not entitled to indemnity costs because their settlement offer required releases and covenants from third parties and went beyond what the plaintiffs could accept.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 March 2003
Procedural Posture
Costs Determination in Equity Division Commercial List Proceedings / After Judgment Dismissing Plaintiffs' Substantive Claims, With Costs Argued
Outcome
Amended summons dismissed; amended cross-claim dismissed; plaintiffs to pay the defendants' costs on a party and party basis.
Legal Topics
['costs Discretion' 'party and Party Costs' 'indemnity Costs' 'security for Costs' 'settlement Offer Requiring Third Party Releases']
['costs' 'civil Procedure'] ['costs Discretion' 'party and Party Costs' 'indemnity Costs' 'security for Costs' 'settlement Offer Requiring Third Party Releases']

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

Costs Determination in Equity Division Commercial List Proceedings / After Judgment Dismissing Plaintiffs' Substantive Claims, With Costs Argued

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the second plaintiff, Geoffrey Argent Higgins, should be liable only for costs referable to his personal claim for 150 shares rather than for the defendants' costs generally." 'Whether the defendants should receive party and party costs up to and including 6 November 2002 and indemnity costs thereafter by reason of a settlement offer made on 7 November 2002.']

Ratio Decidendi

Higgins should not be relieved from the general costs order because, although some relief concerned obligations owed to Corsecure, the proceedings as a whole were for his benefit: if successful, Corsecure would have obtained the CyberGuard arrangements and Higgins would have been, as against the defendants, the only shareholder of Corsecure. The defendants were not entitled to indemnity costs because their settlement offer required releases and covenants from third parties and went beyond what the plaintiffs could accept.

Court Disposition

Amended summons dismissed; amended cross-claim dismissed; plaintiffs to pay the defendants' costs on a party and party basis.

Orders

  • ['Amended summons dismissed' 'Amended cross-claim dismissed' "The plaintiffs' to pay the defendants' costs on a party and party basis."]