Ku v Song (No. 2) [2007] FCA 1430

Ku v Song (No. 2) [2007] FCA 1430

Responsibility for unnecessary costs and expense due to failure to consider the company's constitution and shareholding rested with both the applicant and the respondents; in the circumstances, no order as to costs is appropriate.

Parties
Applicant: Jun Bom Ku; First Respondent: Dong Soon Song; Second Respondent: Suk Joon Song; Third Respondent: Ji Young Song; Fourth Respondent: Kjun International Pty Ltd (ACN 092 708 999); Fifth Respondent: Su-shi World Australia Pty Ltd (ACN 076 098 701)
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 September 2007
Procedural Posture
Civil / Costs Ruling Following Final Judgment and Declarations
Outcome
No order as to costs.
Legal Topics
Directorship Dispute, Shareholding Dispute, Costs, Company Constitution, Assignment of Intellectual Property, Declaratory Relief
Corporations Law Directorship Dispute Shareholding Dispute Costs Company Constitution Assignment of Intellectual Property Declaratory Relief

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 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jun Bom Ku

Applicant

Dong Soon Song

First Respondent

Suk Joon Song

Second Respondent

Ji Young Song

Third Respondent

Kjun International Pty Ltd (ACN 092 708 999)

Fourth Respondent

Su-shi World Australia Pty Ltd (ACN 076 098 701)

Fifth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil / Costs Ruling Following Final Judgment and Declarations

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether costs should be awarded following declaratory relief where responsibility is shared
  2. 2 Whether conduct of applicant or respondents justified special costs orders

Ratio Decidendi

Responsibility for unnecessary costs and expense due to failure to consider the company's constitution and shareholding rested with both the applicant and the respondents; in the circumstances, no order as to costs is appropriate.

Court Disposition

No order as to costs.

Orders

  • There be no order as to costs.