Reed Constructions Australia Pty Ltd v DM Fabrications Pty Ltd [2007] NSWSC 1409

Reed Constructions Australia Pty Ltd v DM Fabrications Pty Ltd [2007] NSWSC 1409

Reed was an active participant in the rectification aspect even though it did not oppose rectification, so its costs of that process should not be paid by DM and there should be no order as to costs. Reed did not establish that the defendants' conduct warranted departure from the ordinary approach to costs where interlocutory injunctive relief is granted; the basis for Reed's injunction application was not fully articulated until the hearing and the injunction aspect should be treated as part of the substantive proceeding yet to be determined, so those costs should be costs in the cause.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 December 2007
Procedural Posture
Costs Consequent Upon Interlocutory Processes / Costs Determination After Interlocutory Judgment
Outcome
No order as to costs for the rectification interlocutory process and cross-claim; costs of Reed's interlocutory injunction application ordered to be costs in the cause.
Legal Topics
['costs of Interlocutory Applications' 'interlocutory Injunction Costs' 'rectification of Deed of Company Arrangement' 'set Off Under S 553 C of the Corporations Act' 'costs in the Cause']
['procedure' 'costs' 'corporations'] ['costs of Interlocutory Applications' 'interlocutory Injunction Costs' 'rectification of Deed of Company Arrangement' 'set Off Under S 553 C of the Corporations Act' 'costs in the Cause']

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 Consequent Upon Interlocutory Processes / Costs Determination After Interlocutory Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether Reed's costs of DM Fabrications Pty Ltd's interlocutory process for rectification of the deed of company arrangement and the cross-claim should be paid by the defendants or whether there should be no order as to costs." "Whether the defendants should pay Reed's costs of its successful interlocutory injunction application or whether those costs should be costs in the cause or plaintiff's costs in the cause."]

Ratio Decidendi

Reed was an active participant in the rectification aspect even though it did not oppose rectification, so its costs of that process should not be paid by DM and there should be no order as to costs. Reed did not establish that the defendants' conduct warranted departure from the ordinary approach to costs where interlocutory injunctive relief is granted; the basis for Reed's injunction application was not fully articulated until the hearing and the injunction aspect should be treated as part of the substantive proceeding yet to be determined, so those costs should be costs in the cause.

Court Disposition

No order as to costs for the rectification interlocutory process and cross-claim; costs of Reed's interlocutory injunction application ordered to be costs in the cause.

Orders

  • ['In relation to the interlocutory process of DM Fabrications Pty Ltd filed on 25 September 2007 and the cross-claim, I make no order as to costs to the intent that each party should bear its or his own costs.' 'In relation to the application of Reed Constructions Australia Pty Limited for an interlocutory...