Stewart v Spicer Thoroughbreds Pty Ltd [2022] NSWSC 637

Stewart v Spicer Thoroughbreds Pty Ltd [2022] NSWSC 637

Neither party can be characterised as wholly successful for the purposes of determining costs. The Plaintiff succeeded on several issues but did not obtain the final relief sought. The Defendants succeeded in a narrow but critical issue raised during submissions. Fairness in cost allocation is best achieved by making no order as to costs, reflecting mutual responsibility for the incurrence of costs across dominant and ancillary issues.

Parties
Plaintiff: John Stewart; First Defendant: Spicer Thoroughbreds Pty Ltd; Second Defendant: Brad John Spicer
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 May 2022
Procedural Posture
Equity Commercial List / Post Trial Judgment (costs Determination)
Outcome
No order as to costs. Plaintiff's Amended Summons otherwise dismissed. Declarations regarding managed investment schemes and contraventions granted. Time extension and effect of notice determined.
Legal Topics
Costs, Managed Investment Schemes, Corporations Act
Civil Procedure Equity Costs Managed Investment Schemes Corporations Act

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 16 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Stewart

Plaintiff

Spicer Thoroughbreds Pty Ltd

First Defendant

Brad John Spicer

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Equity Commercial List / Post Trial Judgment (costs Determination)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether costs should follow the event when plaintiff succeeds on intervening issues but not in final relief sought
  2. 2 Whether any party should be ordered to pay the other's costs in light of partial successes and failures on central and ancillary issues in the litigation
  3. 3 Whether the operation of managed investment schemes by the First Defendant constituted contraventions under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth)

Ratio Decidendi

Neither party can be characterised as wholly successful for the purposes of determining costs. The Plaintiff succeeded on several issues but did not obtain the final relief sought. The Defendants succeeded in a narrow but critical issue raised during submissions. Fairness in cost allocation is best achieved by making no order as to costs, reflecting mutual responsibility for the incurrence of costs across dominant and ancillary issues.

Court Disposition

No order as to costs. Plaintiff's Amended Summons otherwise dismissed. Declarations regarding managed investment schemes and contraventions granted. Time extension and effect of notice determined.

Orders

  • Declare each of the three thoroughbred racing horse investment schemes relating to 'Lucky For All', 'Le Baol' and 'Panama Papers' were managed investment schemes under section 9 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).
  • Declare the First Defendant contravened section 601ED(5) of the Corporations Act by operating the Schemes without required registration.