Pleash, in the matter of Equititrust Limited (In Liquidation) (Receivers and Managers Appointed) (No 4) [2017] FCA 1599

Pleash, in the matter of Equititrust Limited (In Liquidation) (Receivers and Managers Appointed) (No 4) [2017] FCA 1599

Because both sides achieved approximately equal success in sequential stages of the interlocutory applications and their costs would offset each other, and because apportionment based on concessions was unworkable, it was fairest and most efficient to make no order as to costs.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 December 2017
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Costs of Interlocutory Applications Following Examination Proceedings Under Part 5.9 of the Corporations Act 2001 (cth)
Outcome
No order as to costs.
Legal Topics
['costs' 'examination Proceedings' 'liquidation' 'discretion to Award Costs']
['commercial Law' 'corporations Law'] ['costs' 'examination Proceedings' 'liquidation' 'discretion to Award Costs']

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

Interlocutory Application / Costs of Interlocutory Applications Following Examination Proceedings Under Part 5.9 of the Corporations Act 2001 (cth)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether costs of interlocutory applications in examination proceedings under Part 5.9 should be apportioned based on 'success' and concessions." 'Whether or not to make any order for costs given equal success in sequential stages.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because both sides achieved approximately equal success in sequential stages of the interlocutory applications and their costs would offset each other, and because apportionment based on concessions was unworkable, it was fairest and most efficient to make no order as to costs.

Court Disposition

No order as to costs.

Orders

  • ['There be no order for costs of the interlocutory application filed on 23 June 2017, amended on 4 July 2017 and further amended on 5 July 2017.']