Inprint Ltd v K&D Media Pty Ltd & Anor [1995] FCA 1107

Inprint Ltd v K&D Media Pty Ltd & Anor [1995] FCA 1107

Because the merits had not been tried, the factual and credit disputes could not be resolved for costs purposes. The applicant was not unreasonable in commencing proceedings to seek removal of the administrator, and the respondents were not unreasonable in initially defending them, particularly where the matter settled promptly and without admission of liability. In those circumstances no order for costs should be made.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 December 1995
Procedural Posture
Application for Removal of Administrator, Appointment of Alternate Administrator, Declaratory Relief, Damages and Related Creditors' Meeting Orders / Costs Determination After Terms of Settlement and Without a Final Hearing on the Merits
Outcome
No order as to costs.
Legal Topics
['costs Discretion' 'settlement Before Trial' 'removal of Administrator' 'voluntary Administration' 'no Trial on the Merits']
['civil Procedure' 'corporations Law' 'insolvency'] ['costs Discretion' 'settlement Before Trial' 'removal of Administrator' 'voluntary Administration' 'no Trial on the Merits']

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

Application for Removal of Administrator, Appointment of Alternate Administrator, Declaratory Relief, Damages and Related Creditors' Meeting Orders / Costs Determination After Terms of Settlement and Without a Final Hearing on the Merits

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether costs should be awarded after the substantive proceedings were resolved by terms of settlement without a trial on the merits.' 'Whether the applicant acted reasonably in commencing the proceedings.' 'Whether the respondents acted reasonably in defending the proceedings.' 'Whether costs should be awarded against the second respondent personally or on an indemnity basis.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because the merits had not been tried, the factual and credit disputes could not be resolved for costs purposes. The applicant was not unreasonable in commencing proceedings to seek removal of the administrator, and the respondents were not unreasonable in initially defending them, particularly where the matter settled promptly and without admission of liability. In those circumstances no order for costs should be made.

Court Disposition

No order as to costs.

Orders

  • ['No order for costs should be made.']