Pharaoh Gold Mines NL v Pharaoh Metals Corp NL & Anor [1996] FCA 601

Pharaoh Gold Mines NL v Pharaoh Metals Corp NL & Anor [1996] FCA 601

Indemnity costs were not appropriate because the Court could not infer that nothing other than a court declaration would have satisfied the first respondent, could not conclude the first respondent invited the application as the only means of resolving the impasse, and could not find wilful disregard of clearly established law. However, the application could not be said to have been unnecessary because it had been proffered by the first respondent as one means of resolving the dispute, so the first respondent was ordered to pay the applicant's costs to be taxed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 July 1996
Procedural Posture
Application for Declaratory and Other Relief Under the Corporations Law Concerning Allotment, Issue and Dispatch of Share Scrip / Judgment After the First Respondent Undertook to Issue the Share Scrip; Remaining Issue Was Indemnity Costs
Outcome
Application dismissed; indemnity costs refused; first respondent ordered to pay the applicant's costs to be taxed.
Legal Topics
['costs' 'indemnity Costs' "court's Discretion as to Costs" 'issue and Dispatch of Share Certificates' 'financial Assistance for Acquisition of Shares' 'rights Issue']
['practice and Procedure' 'corporations Law'] ['costs' 'indemnity Costs' "court's Discretion as to Costs" 'issue and Dispatch of Share Certificates' 'financial Assistance for Acquisition of Shares' 'rights Issue']

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

Application for Declaratory and Other Relief Under the Corporations Law Concerning Allotment, Issue and Dispatch of Share Scrip / Judgment After the First Respondent Undertook to Issue the Share Scrip; Remaining Issue Was Indemnity Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether indemnity costs should be ordered against the first respondent for withholding issue and dispatch of share certificates until satisfaction that s205 of the Corporations Law was not breached.' 'Whether the application to the Court was necessary in circumstances where the first respondent sought proof or a court declaration or regulatory notification before issuing the share certificates.' "Whether the first respondent's conduct involved wilful disregard of clearly established law."]

Ratio Decidendi

Indemnity costs were not appropriate because the Court could not infer that nothing other than a court declaration would have satisfied the first respondent, could not conclude the first respondent invited the application as the only means of resolving the impasse, and could not find wilful disregard of clearly established law. However, the application could not be said to have been unnecessary because it had been proffered by the first respondent as one means of resolving the dispute, so the first respondent was ordered to pay the applicant's costs to be taxed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; indemnity costs refused; first respondent ordered to pay the applicant's costs to be taxed.

Orders

  • ['The application be dismissed.' 'The first respondent pay the costs of the applicant, to be taxed.']