Monarch Advisory Group Pty Ltd v Puxty (No 3) [2021] FCA 1120

Monarch Advisory Group Pty Ltd v Puxty (No 3) [2021] FCA 1120

Indemnity costs were not warranted as respondents were entitled to bring their applications; their conduct did not rise to the level justifying indemnity costs and their refusal of offers to compromise was not imprudent given the binary nature of the outcome. Lump sum or forthwith costs were also not justified. Applicant's interlocutory application for indemnity costs was dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 September 2021
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Applications for Costs / Judgment on Costs Applications
Outcome
Applicant's interlocutory application for indemnity costs dismissed. Respondents to pay applicant's costs of Removal Application as agreed or taxed. Applicant to pay respondents' costs of interlocutory application.
Legal Topics
['costs' 'indemnity Costs' 'interlocutory Applications' 'offers to Compromise' 'variation of Orders']
['commercial Law' 'corporations Law'] ['costs' 'indemnity Costs' 'interlocutory Applications' 'offers to Compromise' 'variation of 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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Applications for Costs / Judgment on Costs Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether applicant is entitled to indemnity costs for interlocutory applications' 'Whether conduct of respondents caused loss of time to the Court or other parties' 'Whether respondents acted in wilful disregard of known facts or clearly established law' "Whether respondents imprudently refused applicant's offers to compromise" 'Whether variation of previous costs orders should be granted']

Ratio Decidendi

Indemnity costs were not warranted as respondents were entitled to bring their applications; their conduct did not rise to the level justifying indemnity costs and their refusal of offers to compromise was not imprudent given the binary nature of the outcome. Lump sum or forthwith costs were also not justified. Applicant's interlocutory application for indemnity costs was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Applicant's interlocutory application for indemnity costs dismissed. Respondents to pay applicant's costs of Removal Application as agreed or taxed. Applicant to pay respondents' costs of interlocutory application.

Orders

  • ["The respondents are to pay the applicant's costs of the respondents' interlocutory application filed on 8 December 2020 seeking to restrain the applicant's solicitors from acting for it in this proceeding as agreed or taxed." "The applicant's interlocutory application filed on 9 August 2021 is dismissed." "The...