Riabkoff v Abenergy Properties Pty Ltd [2012] NSWSC 724
Both Mr Riabkoff and Abenergy Properties Pty Ltd placed Mr Chong in the position where he incurred legal costs as stakeholder faced with rival claims to the $100,000, so both were ordered to pay his costs on an indemnity basis. Mr Riabkoff was required to indemnify Abenergy for those costs because he had agreed in the deed to pay Mr Chong's fees and his failure to respond to Mr Chong's correspondence substantially led to the interpleader application. A gross sum order was refused because assessment was unlikely to be protracted or expensive, there was no evidence that the paying parties could not meet assessment costs, and the Court lacked sufficient evidence to assess the reasonableness...
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 29 June 2012
- Procedural Posture
- Interpleader Costs Application / Costs of the Second Defendant's Notice of Motion Filed 11 May 2012 After Consent Interpleader Order Made by the Registrar on 23 May 2012
- Outcome
- The second defendant was awarded indemnity costs payable by the plaintiff and first defendant, with the plaintiff to indemnify the first defendant; a gross sum costs order was refused; the second defendant was declared entitled to deduct assessed or agreed costs from the stakeholder funds and pay the balance into...
- Legal Topics
- ['interpleader' 'indemnity Costs' 'gross Sum Costs Order' 'stakeholder Funds' 'solicitor Trust Account' 'trustee Right of Indemnity']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Interpleader Costs Application / Costs of the Second Defendant's Notice of Motion Filed 11 May 2012 After Consent Interpleader Order Made by the Registrar on 23 May 2012
Legal Issues
- 1 ["Whether the plaintiff alone or both the plaintiff and the first defendant should pay the second defendant's costs of the interpleader application." "Whether the Court should make a gross sum costs order fixing the second defendant's costs at $18,842 under s 98(4)(c) of the Civil Procedure Act 2005." 'Whether the second defendant was entitled to deduct his costs from the $100,000 held by him in his trust account as stakeholder.' "Whether the second defendant's costs should be payable on an indemnity basis."]
Ratio Decidendi
Both Mr Riabkoff and Abenergy Properties Pty Ltd placed Mr Chong in the position where he incurred legal costs as stakeholder faced with rival claims to the $100,000, so both were ordered to pay his costs on an indemnity basis. Mr Riabkoff was required to indemnify Abenergy for those costs because he had agreed in the deed to pay Mr Chong's fees and his failure to respond to Mr Chong's correspondence substantially led to the interpleader application. A gross sum order was refused because assessment was unlikely to be protracted or expensive, there was no evidence that the paying parties could not meet assessment costs, and the Court lacked sufficient evidence to assess the reasonableness...
Court Disposition
The second defendant was awarded indemnity costs payable by the plaintiff and first defendant, with the plaintiff to indemnify the first defendant; a gross sum costs order was refused; the second defendant was declared entitled to deduct assessed or agreed costs from the stakeholder funds and pay the balance into...
Orders
- ["The plaintiff and the first defendant pay the costs of the second defendant of the second defendant's Notice of Motion of 11 May 2012 and of the proceedings on an indemnity basis." 'The plaintiff pay the costs of the first defendant that the first defendant is liable to pay by reason of order 1.' 'Declare that the...
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