London City Equities Ltd (No 4) v Penrice Soda Holdings Ltd [2013] FCA 64

London City Equities Ltd (No 4) v Penrice Soda Holdings Ltd [2013] FCA 64

The plaintiff was ordered to pay the defendant's costs because the defendant was successful on the interlocutory application, the application was reasonably filed, and the defendant had made an offer in substance the same as the orders made on 12 December 2012.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 February 2013
Procedural Posture
Costs on Interlocutory Application / Judgment Disposing of Defendant's Interlocutory Application
Outcome
Subject to Order 1 made on 12 December 2012, the defendant's interlocutory application dated 30 November 2012 was otherwise dismissed, and the plaintiff was ordered to pay the defendant's costs of the application.
Legal Topics
['costs of Interlocutory Application' 'return of Documents Made Available Under S 247 a of the Corporations Act 2001 (cth)']
['costs' 'corporations'] ['costs of Interlocutory Application' 'return of Documents Made Available Under S 247 a of the Corporations Act 2001 (cth)']

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

Procedural Posture

Costs on Interlocutory Application / Judgment Disposing of Defendant's Interlocutory Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the plaintiff should pay the defendant's costs of the defendant's interlocutory application."]

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff was ordered to pay the defendant's costs because the defendant was successful on the interlocutory application, the application was reasonably filed, and the defendant had made an offer in substance the same as the orders made on 12 December 2012.

Court Disposition

Subject to Order 1 made on 12 December 2012, the defendant's interlocutory application dated 30 November 2012 was otherwise dismissed, and the plaintiff was ordered to pay the defendant's costs of the application.

Orders

  • ["Subject to Order 1 made on 12 December 2012, the defendant's interlocutory application dated 30 November 2012 be otherwise dismissed." "The plaintiff pay the defendant's costs of the defendant's interlocutory application."]