Trevan v Trevan & Ors (No 2) [2010] NSWSC 441

Trevan v Trevan & Ors (No 2) [2010] NSWSC 441

The proceedings were essentially a contest between Jack and Robert about Robert's unjustified proof of debt, so Jack should not bear his own or Robert's costs through the liquidation. Robert unreasonably refused Jack's 21 May 2009 offer, which would have left him in a much better position than the final result; accordingly Robert must pay Jack's costs on the party/party basis up to and including 27 May 2009 and thereafter on the indemnity basis.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 April 2010
Procedural Posture
Corporations Costs Proceeding Concerning Proof of Debt in Liquidation / Consequential Orders on Costs After Judgment
Outcome
The Plaintiff was ordered to pay the First Defendant's costs of the proceedings on the party/party basis up to and including 27 May 2009, and thereafter on the indemnity basis.
Legal Topics
['costs of Proceedings' 'indemnity Costs' 'proof of Debt' 'liquidation Expenses' 'offer of Compromise']
['corporations' 'costs' 'insolvency'] ['costs of Proceedings' 'indemnity Costs' 'proof of Debt' 'liquidation Expenses' 'offer of Compromise']

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

Corporations Costs Proceeding Concerning Proof of Debt in Liquidation / Consequential Orders on Costs After Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the costs of proceedings to set aside a creditor/shareholder's proof of debt should be costs of the liquidation or paid by the unsuccessful party." 'Whether the First Defendant should receive indemnity costs after expiry of his settlement offer.']

Ratio Decidendi

The proceedings were essentially a contest between Jack and Robert about Robert's unjustified proof of debt, so Jack should not bear his own or Robert's costs through the liquidation. Robert unreasonably refused Jack's 21 May 2009 offer, which would have left him in a much better position than the final result; accordingly Robert must pay Jack's costs on the party/party basis up to and including 27 May 2009 and thereafter on the indemnity basis.

Court Disposition

The Plaintiff was ordered to pay the First Defendant's costs of the proceedings on the party/party basis up to and including 27 May 2009, and thereafter on the indemnity basis.

Orders

  • ["Order that the Plaintiff pay the First Defendant's costs of the proceedings on the party/party basis up to and including 27.05.09, and thereafter on the indemnity basis."]