BHAGAT V. ROYAL & SUN ALLIANCE LIFE ASSURANCE AUSTRALIA LIMITED & ORS. [2000] NSWSC 159

BHAGAT V. ROYAL & SUN ALLIANCE LIFE ASSURANCE AUSTRALIA LIMITED & ORS. [2000] NSWSC 159

The plaintiff's summons did not constitute an application under s.701(6) because its orders sought only to hold matters in abeyance pending further events, not to prevent s.701(5) from operating with finality. Even accounting for the plaintiff's status as a litigant in person, clarity and expedition are required for applications under s.701(6). Costs should follow the event, and no sufficient reason was shown to depart from the ordinary rule despite the plaintiff's arguments.

Parties
Plaintiff: Hari Bhagat; 1st Defendant: Royal & Sun Alliance Life Assurance Australia Ltd.; 2nd Defendant: Duncan Boyle; 3rd Defendant: Tyndall Australia Limited; 4th Defendant: Michael Wilkins
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 March 1999
Procedural Posture
Corporations Takeover Offers Application by Dissenting Offerees / Judgment on Costs and Clarification of Previous Orders
Outcome
Plaintiff ordered to pay costs of the first and second defendants; plaintiff ordered to pay costs of third and fourth defendants of certain Notices of Motion, but such costs not to be enforced until conclusion of proceedings.
Legal Topics
Takeover Offers, Dissenting Offerees, Application Under S.701 Corporations Law, Costs Orders, Litigants in Person
Corporations Law Takeover Offers Dissenting Offerees Application Under S.701 Corporations Law Costs Orders Litigants in Person

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hari Bhagat

Plaintiff

Royal & Sun Alliance Life Assurance Australia Ltd.

1st Defendant

Duncan Boyle

2nd Defendant

Tyndall Australia Limited

3rd Defendant

Michael Wilkins

4th Defendant

Procedural Posture

Corporations Takeover Offers Application by Dissenting Offerees / Judgment on Costs and Clarification of Previous Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff's summons constituted an application under s.701(6) of the Corporations Law
  2. 2 Entitlement to costs in proceedings involving a litigant in person
  3. 3 Requirements for clarity and expedition in s.701(6) applications

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff's summons did not constitute an application under s.701(6) because its orders sought only to hold matters in abeyance pending further events, not to prevent s.701(5) from operating with finality. Even accounting for the plaintiff's status as a litigant in person, clarity and expedition are required for applications under s.701(6). Costs should follow the event, and no sufficient reason was shown to depart from the ordinary rule despite the plaintiff's arguments.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff ordered to pay costs of the first and second defendants; plaintiff ordered to pay costs of third and fourth defendants of certain Notices of Motion, but such costs not to be enforced until conclusion of proceedings.

Orders

  • The plaintiff is ordered to pay the costs of the first and second defendants.
  • The plaintiff is ordered to pay the costs of the third and fourth defendants of his Notices of Motion filed 2nd August 1999 and 13th October 1999, but those costs not to be enforced until the conclusion of these proceedings.