KENNARDS HIRE PTY LTD v RMGA PTY LTD [2011] NSWSC 226

KENNARDS HIRE PTY LTD v RMGA PTY LTD [2011] NSWSC 226

Where an applicant substantially fails on most claims in an interlocutory process but succeeds in securing a limited order (here, review of remuneration), costs should be apportioned to reflect overall success and failure. Indemnity costs and interest are not appropriate where some success was achieved and no...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Applicant: Mignon Esther Gardener; Respondent: David Lewis Clout; Plaintiff: Kennards Hire Pty Ltd; Defendant: RMGA Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 March 2011
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Costs Judgment Following Interlocutory Process
Outcome
Costs apportioned between applicant and respondent according to success; no indemnity costs; no interest awarded.
Legal Topics
Costs, Remuneration of Liquidators, Apportionment of Costs, Interest on Costs
Civil Procedure Corporations Law Costs Remuneration of Liquidators Apportionment of Costs Interest on Costs

Source-derived case record

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mignon Esther Gardener

Applicant

David Lewis Clout

Respondent

Kennards Hire Pty Ltd

Plaintiff

RMGA Pty Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application / Costs Judgment Following Interlocutory Process

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether costs should be apportioned where the applicant had limited success in an interlocutory process
  2. 2 Whether indemnity costs should be granted
  3. 3 Whether interest on costs should be allowed

Ratio Decidendi

Where an applicant substantially fails on most claims in an interlocutory process but succeeds in securing a limited order (here, review of remuneration), costs should be apportioned to reflect overall success and failure. Indemnity costs and interest are not appropriate where some success was achieved and no special circumstances apply.

Court Disposition

Costs apportioned between applicant and respondent according to success; no indemnity costs; no interest awarded.

Orders

  • Applicant (Mrs Gardener) to pay 95% of respondent's (Mr Clout) costs of and incidental to the interlocutory process up to 2 December 2010 and hearing on costs on 3 February 2011.
  • Respondent (Mr Clout) to pay 5% of applicant's (Mrs Gardener) costs of and incidental to the interlocutory process up to 2 December 2010 and hearing on costs on 3 February 2011.