Matter Technology Ltd (administrators appointed) v Mrakas; Mrakas v Matter Technology Ltd (administrators appointed) (No 2) [2018] NSWSC 1245

Matter Technology Ltd (administrators appointed) v Mrakas; Mrakas v Matter Technology Ltd (administrators appointed) (No 2) [2018] NSWSC 1245

Mr Barnes, as sole director of Matter during a state of emergency, was entitled under the company's constitution to authorise solicitors to commence proceedings; authority to act for Matter was established via instructions and solicitor records. Mr Mrakas's challenge to authority failed. A gross sum costs order was appropriate given the low likelihood of cost recovery and potential for vexatious assessment, with $230,000 specified pursuant to s 98(4)(c) Civil Procedure Act.

Parties
First Plaintiff/cross Defendant: Matter Technology Ltd (administrators appointed); Second Plaintiff: Matter IP Pty Ltd; First Defendant/cross Claimant (in Person): Christopher Mrakas; Second Defendant: Platipus Foundation Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 August 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil / Post Judgment, Costs Determination, Notice of Motion
Outcome
Defendants' notice of motion of 19 July 2018 dismissed with costs; gross sum costs order made for plaintiffs' costs at $230,000; defendants to pay plaintiffs' costs of its notice of motion of 2 May 2018.
Legal Topics
Lawyer Authority to Act, Director Authority to Commence Proceedings, Costs—gross Sum Orders
Equity Commercial Law Corporations Law Lawyer Authority to Act Director Authority to Commence Proceedings Costs—gross Sum Orders

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 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Matter Technology Ltd (administrators appointed)

First Plaintiff/cross Defendant

Matter IP Pty Ltd

Second Plaintiff

Christopher Mrakas

First Defendant/cross Claimant (in Person)

Platipus Foundation Pty Ltd

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Post Judgment, Costs Determination, Notice of Motion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether plaintiffs' solicitors were authorised to commence proceedings for Matter Technology Ltd
  2. 2 Whether proceedings should be dismissed for want of authority by the plaintiffs' solicitors
  3. 3 Whether a gross sum costs order should be made under s 98(4)(c) Civil Procedure Act

Ratio Decidendi

Mr Barnes, as sole director of Matter during a state of emergency, was entitled under the company's constitution to authorise solicitors to commence proceedings; authority to act for Matter was established via instructions and solicitor records. Mr Mrakas's challenge to authority failed. A gross sum costs order was appropriate given the low likelihood of cost recovery and potential for vexatious assessment, with $230,000 specified pursuant to s 98(4)(c) Civil Procedure Act.

Court Disposition

Defendants' notice of motion of 19 July 2018 dismissed with costs; gross sum costs order made for plaintiffs' costs at $230,000; defendants to pay plaintiffs' costs of its notice of motion of 2 May 2018.

Orders

  • Defendants' notice of motion of 19 July 2018 dismissed with costs.
  • Plaintiffs' costs in these proceedings specified pursuant to s 98(4)(c) of the Civil Procedure Act at $230,000.