Ungar v Haddonstone Pty Ltd (In Admin) [1999] NSWSC 250

Ungar v Haddonstone Pty Ltd (In Admin) [1999] NSWSC 250

Although the administrator's conduct had been criticised and was considered incorrect, it was a case in which he fell into error in carrying out his duties and the process went wrong, not conduct warranting a personal costs order. Because the defendants made an open offer on 17 October 1997 that exactly coincided with the result obtained, the plaintiff was entitled to costs only up to one week after the offer, and the company was entitled to costs thereafter.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 March 1999
Procedural Posture
Corporations Voluntary Administration; Review of Administrator's Decision; Costs / Costs Orders Following Judgment Delivered on 22 December 1998
Outcome
Costs not ordered against the administrator personally.
Legal Topics
['voluntary Administration' "review of Administrator's Decision" 'costs' 'personal Costs Order Against Administrator' 'offer of Compromise']
['corporations' 'civil Procedure'] ['voluntary Administration' "review of Administrator's Decision" 'costs' 'personal Costs Order Against Administrator' 'offer of Compromise']

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

Corporations Voluntary Administration; Review of Administrator's Decision; Costs / Costs Orders Following Judgment Delivered on 22 December 1998

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether costs should be ordered against the administrator personally.' 'What costs orders should be made in light of an open offer made by facsimile transmission on 17 October 1997.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although the administrator's conduct had been criticised and was considered incorrect, it was a case in which he fell into error in carrying out his duties and the process went wrong, not conduct warranting a personal costs order. Because the defendants made an open offer on 17 October 1997 that exactly coincided with the result obtained, the plaintiff was entitled to costs only up to one week after the offer, and the company was entitled to costs thereafter.

Court Disposition

Costs not ordered against the administrator personally.

Orders

  • ['The plaintiff is to have its costs up to a week after the making of the open offer sent on 17 October 1997.' 'Thereafter, the company is to have its costs of the proceedings.' "The plaintiff is to pay Mr Sutherland's costs of the unsuccessful costs application against him." 'The Court made the orders contained in...