Howard Finance Ltd v Mintvale Pty Ltd & Ors [1996] FCA 214

Howard Finance Ltd v Mintvale Pty Ltd & Ors [1996] FCA 214

Because the fate of Howard's trust claim in paras 33A-33N of the amended statement of claim remained undetermined and would be an important factor in deciding whether the parties were justified in seeking or opposing the interlocutory relief, the costs of the two dismissed interlocutory motions should be reserved rather than finally determined immediately.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 March 1996
Procedural Posture
Federal Court Civil Proceeding Involving Interlocutory Mareva and Anton Piller Relief and Alleged Fraud in Connection With Factoring Agreements / Costs Determination After Interlocutory Motions by the Second, Fourth and Fifth Respondents and the Third Respondent Were Not Pressed and Were Dismissed
Outcome
Costs of the two interlocutory motions were reserved to the final hearing.
Legal Topics
['costs of Interlocutory Motions' 'mareva Injunction' 'anton Piller Order' 'trust Claim Over Proceeds of Sale' 'variation of Asset Restraint Orders']
['civil Procedure' 'costs' 'interlocutory Relief'] ['costs of Interlocutory Motions' 'mareva Injunction' 'anton Piller Order' 'trust Claim Over Proceeds of Sale' 'variation of Asset Restraint Orders']

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

Federal Court Civil Proceeding Involving Interlocutory Mareva and Anton Piller Relief and Alleged Fraud in Connection With Factoring Agreements / Costs Determination After Interlocutory Motions by the Second, Fourth and Fifth Respondents and the Third Respondent Were Not Pressed and Were Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['What costs order should be made in relation to the motion of the second, fourth and fifth respondents filed 20 September 1995 and the motion of the third respondent filed 30 October 1995.' 'Whether Howard should receive its costs of the motions with leave to tax immediately, whether there should be no order as to costs at this time, or whether costs should be ordered in favour of the moving respondents.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because the fate of Howard's trust claim in paras 33A-33N of the amended statement of claim remained undetermined and would be an important factor in deciding whether the parties were justified in seeking or opposing the interlocutory relief, the costs of the two dismissed interlocutory motions should be reserved rather than finally determined immediately.

Court Disposition

Costs of the two interlocutory motions were reserved to the final hearing.

Orders

  • ['THAT the costs of the motion of the second, fourth and fifth respondents brought by notice of motion filed 20 September 1995 be reserved.' 'THAT the costs of the motion of the third respondent brought by notice of motion filed 30 October 1995 be reserved.']