Shaw v MAB Corporation Pty Ltd (No 2) [2014] FCA 88

Shaw v MAB Corporation Pty Ltd (No 2) [2014] FCA 88

As the respondents were successful on their application for summary judgment and the proceeding was found to be an abuse of process, costs should be awarded to the respondents on an indemnity basis.

Parties
Applicant: John Rashleigh Shaw; First Respondent: MAB Corporation Pty Ltd (ACN 065 207 230); Second Respondent: MAB Docklands Pty Ltd (ACN 078 029 633); Third Respondent: Yarranova Pty Ltd (ACN 077 517 616); Fourth Respondent: Newquay Stage 2 Pty Ltd (ACN 086 482 644); Fifth Respondent: Arnold Bloch Leibler (ABN 062 7868T); Sixth Respondent: ABL Fiduciary Corp Pty Ltd (ACN 005 524 952); Seventh Respondent: ABL & Co Custodians Pty Ltd (ACN 017 586 898); Eighth Respondent: Anthony Calvi; Ninth Respondent: Ian Michael Smith; Tenth Respondent: Alexander William King
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 February 2014
Procedural Posture
Application for Costs (following Summary Judgment) / Post Judgment, Costs Determination
Outcome
Applicant ordered to pay respondents' costs on an indemnity basis.
Legal Topics
Costs, Summary Judgment, Abuse of Process, Indemnity Costs
Practice and Procedure Costs Summary Judgment Abuse of Process Indemnity Costs

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 2 Party arguments 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Rashleigh Shaw

Applicant

MAB Corporation Pty Ltd (ACN 065 207 230)

First Respondent

MAB Docklands Pty Ltd (ACN 078 029 633)

Second Respondent

Yarranova Pty Ltd (ACN 077 517 616)

Third Respondent

Newquay Stage 2 Pty Ltd (ACN 086 482 644)

Fourth Respondent

Arnold Bloch Leibler (ABN 062 7868T)

Fifth Respondent

ABL Fiduciary Corp Pty Ltd (ACN 005 524 952)

Sixth Respondent

ABL & Co Custodians Pty Ltd (ACN 017 586 898)

Seventh Respondent

Anthony Calvi

Eighth Respondent

Ian Michael Smith

Ninth Respondent

Alexander William King

Tenth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Costs (following Summary Judgment) / Post Judgment, Costs Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents should have their costs of the proceeding
  2. 2 Whether costs should be awarded on an indemnity basis

Ratio Decidendi

As the respondents were successful on their application for summary judgment and the proceeding was found to be an abuse of process, costs should be awarded to the respondents on an indemnity basis.

Court Disposition

Applicant ordered to pay respondents' costs on an indemnity basis.

Orders

  • The applicant pay the respondents' costs of the proceeding, such costs, if not otherwise agreed, to be assessed on an indemnity basis.