Robit Nominees Pty Ltd v Oceanlinx Limited (in liq) (Receivers and Managers Appointed), in the matter of Oceanlinx Limited (in liq) (Receivers and Managers Appointed) (No 2) [2016] FCA 342

Robit Nominees Pty Ltd v Oceanlinx Limited (in liq) (Receivers and Managers Appointed), in the matter of Oceanlinx Limited (in liq) (Receivers and Managers Appointed) (No 2) [2016] FCA 342

Because the proceeding had been dismissed and the defendants were successful, the plaintiffs should pay the defendants' costs of the proceeding. The plaintiffs' reliance on the second and third defendants' alleged indemnity under s 443D of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) was untenable. The plaintiffs should also pay the costs of the interlocutory process because it was a late application, made only some days before the hearing, seeking the indulgence of amending their claim.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 April 2016
Procedural Posture
Costs in a Commercial and Corporations Proceeding / Post Dismissal Costs Determination Heard on the Papers
Outcome
Costs orders made against the plaintiffs.
Legal Topics
['costs Follow the Event' 'costs Indemnity Under S 443 D of the Corporations Act 2001 (cth)' 'reserved Costs of Interlocutory Process']
['costs' 'corporations and Corporate Insolvency'] ['costs Follow the Event' 'costs Indemnity Under S 443 D of the Corporations Act 2001 (cth)' 'reserved Costs of Interlocutory Process']

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 a Commercial and Corporations Proceeding / Post Dismissal Costs Determination Heard on the Papers

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the plaintiffs should pay the defendants' costs of the proceeding after the proceeding was dismissed." 'Whether no costs order should be made in favour of the second and third defendants because they were said to have an indemnity under s 443D of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).' "Whether the plaintiffs should pay the defendants' reserved costs of the plaintiffs' interlocutory process dated 9 July 2015."]

Ratio Decidendi

Because the proceeding had been dismissed and the defendants were successful, the plaintiffs should pay the defendants' costs of the proceeding. The plaintiffs' reliance on the second and third defendants' alleged indemnity under s 443D of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) was untenable. The plaintiffs should also pay the costs of the interlocutory process because it was a late application, made only some days before the hearing, seeking the indulgence of amending their claim.

Court Disposition

Costs orders made against the plaintiffs.

Orders

  • ["The plaintiffs pay the first, second and third, and the fourth and fifth, defendants' costs of the proceeding." "The plaintiffs pay the first, second and third, and the fourth and fifth, defendants' costs of the plaintiffs' interlocutory process dated 9 July 2015."]