Corbett v Corbett Court Pty Limited, in the matter of Corbett Court Pty Limited (No 2) [2015] FCA 1298

Corbett v Corbett Court Pty Limited, in the matter of Corbett Court Pty Limited (No 2) [2015] FCA 1298

Indemnity costs were not warranted as the plaintiff did not achieve an outcome more favourable than his own offers of compromise; the defendants were not so unreasonable in rejecting those offers as to justify indemnity costs. However, a modest reduction to the award of ordinary costs was appropriate, reflecting defendants' success on some discrete issues, resulting in an order that the second and third defendants pay 95% of the plaintiff's costs. The second and third defendants are also to pay the first defendant's costs on an indemnity basis.

Parties
Plaintiff: Paul Herbert Corbett; First Defendant: Corbett Court Pty Limited (ACN 062 978 545); Second Defendant: John Keith Corbett; Third Defendant: Renelle Antoinette Corbett; Fourth Defendant: Australian Securities and Investments Commission
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 November 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil / Post Judgment; Determination of Costs
Outcome
Second and third defendants to pay 95% of plaintiff's costs as agreed or taxed; second and third defendants to pay any costs incurred by the first defendant on an indemnity basis.
Legal Topics
Costs, Offers of Compromise, Oppression of Shareholders
Corporations Law Civil Procedure Costs Offers of Compromise Oppression of Shareholders

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 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Paul Herbert Corbett

Plaintiff

Corbett Court Pty Limited (ACN 062 978 545)

First Defendant

John Keith Corbett

Second Defendant

Renelle Antoinette Corbett

Third Defendant

Australian Securities and Investments Commission

Fourth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Post Judgment; Determination of Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Should costs be awarded on an indemnity basis due to offers of compromise?
  2. 2 Whether the discretion to apportion or reduce costs on an issue-by-issue basis should be exercised given relative success on discrete issues.

Ratio Decidendi

Indemnity costs were not warranted as the plaintiff did not achieve an outcome more favourable than his own offers of compromise; the defendants were not so unreasonable in rejecting those offers as to justify indemnity costs. However, a modest reduction to the award of ordinary costs was appropriate, reflecting defendants' success on some discrete issues, resulting in an order that the second and third defendants pay 95% of the plaintiff's costs. The second and third defendants are also to pay the first defendant's costs on an indemnity basis.

Court Disposition

Second and third defendants to pay 95% of plaintiff's costs as agreed or taxed; second and third defendants to pay any costs incurred by the first defendant on an indemnity basis.

Orders

  • The second and third defendants pay 95% of the plaintiff's costs as agreed or taxed.
  • The second and third defendants pay any costs incurred by the first defendant on an indemnity basis.