In the matter of Anne Lewis Pty Limited [2013] NSWSC 1992

In the matter of Anne Lewis Pty Limited [2013] NSWSC 1992

Because the plaintiff substantially succeeded against the first defendant but failed against the second to eighth defendants, and because the defendants largely shared representation, practical justice required no order as to the costs of the substantive proceedings. However, the defendants' non-production of documents and misconceived refusal to recognise the plaintiff's executorial capacity necessitated relisting, so they were ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs of and incidental to that relisting and related compliance efforts.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 November 2013
Procedural Posture
Costs in Corporations List Proceedings for Production of Documents and Preliminary Discovery / Ex Tempore Judgment After Consent Order for Production; Balance of Summons Dismissed
Outcome
Defendants ordered to pay specified relisting and compliance costs; otherwise no order as to costs and the balance of the summons dismissed.
Legal Topics
['production of Documents' 'inspection Under Corporations Act 2001 S 247 A' 'preliminary Discovery' 'executorial Capacity' 'non Compliance With Consent Order' 'partial Success on Costs']
['costs' 'corporations Law' 'civil Procedure'] ['production of Documents' 'inspection Under Corporations Act 2001 S 247 A' 'preliminary Discovery' 'executorial Capacity' 'non Compliance With Consent Order' 'partial Success on Costs']

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 in Corporations List Proceedings for Production of Documents and Preliminary Discovery / Ex Tempore Judgment After Consent Order for Production; Balance of Summons Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the plaintiff should recover costs where he substantially succeeded against the first defendant but obtained no relief against the second to eighth defendants.' 'Whether the defendants should pay costs caused by relisting the matter due to non-production of documents in compliance with the earlier order.' 'Whether opposition to production based on the plaintiff being only one of two executors was misconceived.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because the plaintiff substantially succeeded against the first defendant but failed against the second to eighth defendants, and because the defendants largely shared representation, practical justice required no order as to the costs of the substantive proceedings. However, the defendants' non-production of documents and misconceived refusal to recognise the plaintiff's executorial capacity necessitated relisting, so they were ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs of and incidental to that relisting and related compliance efforts.

Court Disposition

Defendants ordered to pay specified relisting and compliance costs; otherwise no order as to costs and the balance of the summons dismissed.

Orders

  • ["Order that the defendants pay the plaintiff's costs of and incidental to the relisting of the matter before the Chief Judge on 26 August 2013, including the costs of that day and the costs of endeavouring to secure compliance with the order after 20 August 2013, and that otherwise there be no order as to costs to...