ZACD Group Ltd v Bao (Costs) [2023] FCA 1626

ZACD Group Ltd v Bao (Costs) [2023] FCA 1626

The defendant was plainly entitled under r 20.31 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) to inspect the Settlement Deed because it was expressly referred to in the plaintiffs' pleading. The plaintiffs' resistance on grounds of confidentiality, defect in the notice to produce, and asserted lack of necessity for the defence was unnecessary, unproductive and unreasonable, particularly because consent from the other parties to the deed could have been sought earlier and was ultimately readily provided. That conduct caused unnecessary case management hearings, so the plaintiffs must pay the defendant's costs of and incidental to those hearings. Although the defendant's evidence was insufficient...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 December 2023
Procedural Posture
Costs Application in Commercial and Corporations Proceedings / Determined on the Papers After Case Management Hearings
Outcome
Application allowed in part; plaintiffs ordered to pay the defendant's costs of and incidental to the case management hearings, with the lump sum to be determined by a Registrar and paid within 28 days of that determination.
Legal Topics
['interlocutory Costs' 'case Management Hearings' 'notice to Produce' 'inspection of Documents Mentioned in Pleadings' 'confidential Settlement Deed' 'lump Sum Costs' 'costs Payable Forthwith']
['costs' 'civil Procedure' 'corporations and Corporate Insolvency'] ['interlocutory Costs' 'case Management Hearings' 'notice to Produce' 'inspection of Documents Mentioned in Pleadings' 'confidential Settlement Deed' 'lump Sum Costs' 'costs Payable Forthwith']

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

Costs Application in Commercial and Corporations Proceedings / Determined on the Papers After Case Management Hearings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the plaintiffs should pay the defendant's costs of and incidental to the case management hearings on 4 August 2023 and 4 September 2023." "Whether the defendant's costs should be determined on a lump sum basis." 'Whether any costs order should be payable forthwith rather than at the conclusion of the proceeding.']

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant was plainly entitled under r 20.31 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) to inspect the Settlement Deed because it was expressly referred to in the plaintiffs' pleading. The plaintiffs' resistance on grounds of confidentiality, defect in the notice to produce, and asserted lack of necessity for the defence was unnecessary, unproductive and unreasonable, particularly because consent from the other parties to the deed could have been sought earlier and was ultimately readily provided. That conduct caused unnecessary case management hearings, so the plaintiffs must pay the defendant's costs of and incidental to those hearings. Although the defendant's evidence was insufficient...

Court Disposition

Application allowed in part; plaintiffs ordered to pay the defendant's costs of and incidental to the case management hearings, with the lump sum to be determined by a Registrar and paid within 28 days of that determination.

Orders

  • ['Rule 40.13 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) be dispensed with.' "The plaintiffs pay the defendant's costs of and incidental to the case management hearings in these proceedings on 4 August 2023 and 4 September 2023 on a party and party basis in accordance with Orders 3 to 5 of these orders." "The defendant's...