McMillan Investment Holdings Pty Ltd v Morgan (No 2) [2023] FCAFC 41
Because the respondents’ application for a pooling order failed on the jurisdictional preconditions, the appellant is entitled to costs subject to a 50% discount due to its unnecessary pursuit of failed subsidiary issues not relevant to appeal grounds.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 17 March 2023
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal / Costs Determination Following Appeal Judgment
- Outcome
- Orders 4 and 5 of proceeding NSD 75 of 2021 set aside; respondents to pay 50% of appellant’s costs below
- Legal Topics
- ['pooling Order' 'costs in Corporate Insolvency' 'joinder of Parties' 'liquidator Appointment' 'company Reinstatement']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Costs Determination Following Appeal Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Appropriate order for costs following successful appeal against pooling order under s 579E(1) Corporations Act 2001 (Cth)' "Effect of appellant's failure on subsidiary issues on costs determination" 'Centrality of pooling order to other relief sought in proceeding below']
Ratio Decidendi
Because the respondents’ application for a pooling order failed on the jurisdictional preconditions, the appellant is entitled to costs subject to a 50% discount due to its unnecessary pursuit of failed subsidiary issues not relevant to appeal grounds.
Court Disposition
Orders 4 and 5 of proceeding NSD 75 of 2021 set aside; respondents to pay 50% of appellant’s costs below
Orders
- ['Orders 4 and 5 made in NSD 75 of 2021 on 2 December 2021 be set aside' "Respondents pay 50% of appellant's costs of the proceeding below"]
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment