In the matter of FW Projects Pty Limited (in liquidation) [2019] NSWSC 1019

In the matter of FW Projects Pty Limited (in liquidation) [2019] NSWSC 1019

Because the Plaintiffs were unsuccessful on a substantial and discrete initial application, because prayers 1-2 and 4-5 had required the First, Second and Third Defendants to respond, because CBP participated only in respect of prayers 1-2 and would likely have no further role, and because determination of the remaining issues was likely to take significant time, the Plaintiffs should pay the specified defendants' and CBP's costs of and incidental to the relevant prayers, with those costs assessed and paid forthwith. Prayer 3 had become moot and had not been determined, so no costs order was made for it; the directions hearing was retained, but the Plaintiffs were not required to file a...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 August 2019
Procedural Posture
Equity Corporations List Costs Determination Following Dismissal of Initial Claims for Relief / Reasons for Costs and Procedural Orders After Judgment Dismissing Prayers 1 5 of the Amended Originating Process
Outcome
Prayers 1 to 5 of the Amended Originating Process were dismissed; the Plaintiffs were ordered to pay the First, Second and Third Defendants' costs and CBP's costs on the specified basis, with those costs assessed and paid forthwith; the existing directions hearing was confirmed.
Legal Topics
['costs Payable Forthwith' 'costs of Interlocutory Application' 'interested Person Costs Under R 2.13 of the Supreme Court (corporations) Rules 1999 (nsw)' 'reserved Costs' 'directions for Remaining Final Relief']
['costs' 'corporations'] ['costs Payable Forthwith' 'costs of Interlocutory Application' 'interested Person Costs Under R 2.13 of the Supreme Court (corporations) Rules 1999 (nsw)' 'reserved Costs' 'directions for Remaining Final Relief']

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 Corporations List Costs Determination Following Dismissal of Initial Claims for Relief / Reasons for Costs and Procedural Orders After Judgment Dismissing Prayers 1 5 of the Amended Originating Process

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Plaintiffs should pay the First, Second and Third Defendants' costs of and incidental to prayers 1-2 and 4-5 of the Amended Originating Process." "Whether the Plaintiffs should pay Colin Biggers & Paisley Pty Ltd's costs of and incidental to prayers 1-2 of the Amended Originating Process despite CBP being heard as an interested person under r 2.13 of the Supreme Court (Corporations) Rules 1999 (NSW)." 'Whether the costs ordered should be assessed and paid forthwith under rr 42.7(1) and 42.7(2) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW).' 'Whether the existing directions hearing should be vacated or confirmed, and whether the Plaintiffs should be required to file a Statement of Claim immediately for remaining claims.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because the Plaintiffs were unsuccessful on a substantial and discrete initial application, because prayers 1-2 and 4-5 had required the First, Second and Third Defendants to respond, because CBP participated only in respect of prayers 1-2 and would likely have no further role, and because determination of the remaining issues was likely to take significant time, the Plaintiffs should pay the specified defendants' and CBP's costs of and incidental to the relevant prayers, with those costs assessed and paid forthwith. Prayer 3 had become moot and had not been determined, so no costs order was made for it; the directions hearing was retained, but the Plaintiffs were not required to file a...

Court Disposition

Prayers 1 to 5 of the Amended Originating Process were dismissed; the Plaintiffs were ordered to pay the First, Second and Third Defendants' costs and CBP's costs on the specified basis, with those costs assessed and paid forthwith; the existing directions hearing was confirmed.

Orders

  • ['Subject to further order of the Court, the Third Defendant undertakes that, in the event the plaintiffs are successful in obtaining the final relief sought in the Amended Originating Process filed 28 June 2019, it will pay to the liquidator of the first defendant, or as otherwise directed by the Court, any monies...