Noble Investments Pty Ltd ACN 007 998 914 v Southern Cross Exploration NL ACN 000 716 012 [2009] FCA 396

Noble Investments Pty Ltd ACN 007 998 914 v Southern Cross Exploration NL ACN 000 716 012 [2009] FCA 396

Although the plaintiffs needed to institute and prosecute proceedings to obtain the inspection relief ultimately secured, their success was significantly qualified by the needless expense they caused Southern Cross to incur and by unsuccessful interlocutory applications. Conversely, Southern Cross' conduct precipitated the application, made it in some degree the author of its own harm, and put the plaintiffs to reasonably avoidable expense. Balancing the parties' respective success, conduct and responsibility for costs, each party should bear its own costs.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 April 2009
Procedural Posture
Corporations Act Proceeding Concerning Inspection of Company Books and Related Costs / Costs Determination After Consent Inspection Orders and Interlocutory Applications
Outcome
No order as to costs.
Legal Topics
['costs' 'member Inspection of Company Books' 'oppression Proceedings' 'interlocutory Applications' 'confidentiality Undertakings' 'preliminary Discovery']
['corporations Law' 'civil Procedure'] ['costs' 'member Inspection of Company Books' 'oppression Proceedings' 'interlocutory Applications' 'confidentiality Undertakings' 'preliminary Discovery']

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 Act Proceeding Concerning Inspection of Company Books and Related Costs / Costs Determination After Consent Inspection Orders and Interlocutory Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the plaintiffs should obtain a costs order, whether there should be no order as to costs, or whether the plaintiffs should pay the defendant's costs of the proceeding." "How the parties' respective success, conduct, and responsibility for reasonably avoidable expense should affect the costs disposition."]

Ratio Decidendi

Although the plaintiffs needed to institute and prosecute proceedings to obtain the inspection relief ultimately secured, their success was significantly qualified by the needless expense they caused Southern Cross to incur and by unsuccessful interlocutory applications. Conversely, Southern Cross' conduct precipitated the application, made it in some degree the author of its own harm, and put the plaintiffs to reasonably avoidable expense. Balancing the parties' respective success, conduct and responsibility for costs, each party should bear its own costs.

Court Disposition

No order as to costs.

Orders

  • ['There be no order as to costs.']