De Tocqueville, in the matter of Pacific Current Group Limited v Pacific Current Group Limited (No 2) [2020] FCA 229

De Tocqueville, in the matter of Pacific Current Group Limited v Pacific Current Group Limited (No 2) [2020] FCA 229

It is appropriate to make no order as to costs in respect of the interlocutory s 247A application that was not adjudicated on its merits, and as to broader proceeding costs, plaintiffs are to have their costs only if the substantive proceeding is successful, per prior orders.

Parties
First Plaintiff: Michael Brendan Patrick De Tocqueville; Second Plaintiff: ASI Mutual Pty Limited; Defendant: Pacific Current Group Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 February 2020
Procedural Posture
Commercial and Corporations Corporations and Corporate Insolvency / Costs Determination Following Interlocutory Application
Outcome
Interlocutory application dismissed with no order as to costs; no order as to costs for the balance of the proceeding subject to prior costs mechanism in substantive proceeding.
Legal Topics
Costs, Application for Leave to Bring Proceeding on Behalf of a Company, Inspection of Documents (s 247 A)
Practice and Procedure Corporations Law Costs Application for Leave to Bring Proceeding on Behalf of a Company Inspection of Documents (s 247 A)

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 2 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Brendan Patrick De Tocqueville

First Plaintiff

ASI Mutual Pty Limited

Second Plaintiff

Pacific Current Group Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial and Corporations Corporations and Corporate Insolvency / Costs Determination Following Interlocutory Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Appropriate costs order where interlocutory application has become unnecessary and is not adjudicated on its merits
  2. 2 Appropriate costs order for proceeding seeking leave to bring derivative action on behalf of a company

Ratio Decidendi

It is appropriate to make no order as to costs in respect of the interlocutory s 247A application that was not adjudicated on its merits, and as to broader proceeding costs, plaintiffs are to have their costs only if the substantive proceeding is successful, per prior orders.

Court Disposition

Interlocutory application dismissed with no order as to costs; no order as to costs for the balance of the proceeding subject to prior costs mechanism in substantive proceeding.

Orders

  • The plaintiffs' interlocutory process filed on 13 September 2019 be dismissed (with no adjudication on the merits).
  • There be no order as to costs in respect of the plaintiffs' interlocutory process filed on 13 September 2019.