In the matter of Australasian Barrister Chambers Pty Ltd (in liquidation) [2017] NSWSC 695

In the matter of Australasian Barrister Chambers Pty Ltd (in liquidation) [2017] NSWSC 695

Delay in bringing the application was not sufficient to justify awarding indemnity costs, as there was no unreasonable delay, no improper collateral purpose was established, and no additional detriment or expense to the Respondent beyond what already existed. Costs were therefore to be awarded on the ordinary basis.

Parties
Applicant: Dispute Resolution Associates Pty Ltd; First Respondent: David Henry Sampson; Second Respondent: Samanpat Pty Ltd bare Trustee for Relationspace Pty Ltd as Trustee for Jambol Super; Third Respondent: Catherine Mary Boland; Fourth Respondent: Catherine Elizabeth James
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 June 2017
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Costs Determination Following Dismissal of Interlocutory Relief
Outcome
Application for indemnity costs dismissed; costs orders made on an ordinary basis.
Legal Topics
Costs, Indemnity Costs, Interlocutory Applications, Delay in Proceedings
Equity Corporations Costs Indemnity Costs Interlocutory Applications Delay in 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 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dispute Resolution Associates Pty Ltd

Applicant

David Henry Sampson

First Respondent

Samanpat Pty Ltd bare Trustee for Relationspace Pty Ltd as Trustee for Jambol Super

Second Respondent

Catherine Mary Boland

Third Respondent

Catherine Elizabeth James

Fourth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application / Costs Determination Following Dismissal of Interlocutory Relief

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether delay by Applicant in bringing interlocutory application justifies indemnity costs
  2. 2 Whether the application was brought for a collateral purpose
  3. 3 Whether conduct of proceedings supports departure from general costs rule

Ratio Decidendi

Delay in bringing the application was not sufficient to justify awarding indemnity costs, as there was no unreasonable delay, no improper collateral purpose was established, and no additional detriment or expense to the Respondent beyond what already existed. Costs were therefore to be awarded on the ordinary basis.

Court Disposition

Application for indemnity costs dismissed; costs orders made on an ordinary basis.

Orders

  • The Applicant pay the First Respondent's costs of and incidental to the Interlocutory Application foreshadowed on 16 May 2017 and filed 18 May 2017, up to and including the close of business on 19 May 2017, on an ordinary basis, as agreed or as assessed.
  • The First Respondent pay the Applicant's costs of and incidental to the application for indemnity costs, as agreed or as assessed.