In the matter of C.V. Joint (Aust) Pty Ltd [2022] NSWSC 1760

In the matter of C.V. Joint (Aust) Pty Ltd [2022] NSWSC 1760

There should be no order as to costs because the substantive dispute was not determined on its merits; the winding up was effected on grounds separate from those agitated by the Plaintiff and Defendants, by application of the provisional liquidator on insolvency, which amounted to a supervening event. The court was not satisfied that any party acted unreasonably or that the Plaintiff would almost certainly have succeeded; thus, the presumption in favour of costs is displaced.

Parties
Plaintiff: Ji Chen Mi; First Defendant: Duza Aleksandroff; Second Defendant: Ury Aleksandroff; Third Defendant: CV Joint (Aust) Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 December 2022
Procedural Posture
Originating Process and Interlocutory Process (corporations List) / Post Determination of Costs After Winding Up Order and Dismissal of Originating Process
Outcome
No order as to costs for the Originating Process, Second Defendant's Interlocutory Process, or the costs application.
Legal Topics
Party/party Costs, Winding Up of Company, Just and Equitable Ground, Oppression, Supervening Events and Mootness, Exercise of Cost Discretion
Equity Corporations Costs Party/party Costs Winding Up of Company Just and Equitable Ground Oppression Supervening Events and Mootness +1 more

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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ji Chen Mi

Plaintiff

Duza Aleksandroff

First Defendant

Ury Aleksandroff

Second Defendant

CV Joint (Aust) Pty Ltd

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Originating Process and Interlocutory Process (corporations List) / Post Determination of Costs After Winding Up Order and Dismissal of Originating Process

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to costs of the Originating Process where the substantive relief was not determined on the merits and the company was wound up on different grounds
  2. 2 Whether either Defendant should pay the Plaintiff's costs
  3. 3 Whether costs should be ordered in priority in the winding up

Ratio Decidendi

There should be no order as to costs because the substantive dispute was not determined on its merits; the winding up was effected on grounds separate from those agitated by the Plaintiff and Defendants, by application of the provisional liquidator on insolvency, which amounted to a supervening event. The court was not satisfied that any party acted unreasonably or that the Plaintiff would almost certainly have succeeded; thus, the presumption in favour of costs is displaced.

Court Disposition

No order as to costs for the Originating Process, Second Defendant's Interlocutory Process, or the costs application.

Orders

  • No order as to the costs of the Plaintiff's Originating Process filed on 9 June 2022.
  • No order as to the costs of the Second Defendant's Interlocutory Process filed on 6 July 2022.