Maxims Entertainment Pty Ltd v Chinatown Enterprises Pty Ltd [2000] FCA 636

Maxims Entertainment Pty Ltd v Chinatown Enterprises Pty Ltd [2000] FCA 636

Relief was refused because the respondent failed to fulfil obligations, offered no payment or security, and the court's discretion should not be exercised to waive rules absent assurance or reason to believe payment would occur.

Parties
First Applicant: Maxims Entertainment Pty Ltd; Second Applicant: Long Shong Pictures (HK) Ltd; Third Applicant: Pro-Vision Entertainment Ltd; Fourth Applicant: Power World Production Limited; Fifth Applicant: Rising Sun Pictures Limited; First Respondent: Chinatown Enterprises Pty Limited; Third Respondent: Wing Cheung
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 May 2000
Procedural Posture
Application for Discretionary Relief Regarding Taxation of Costs / Post Judgment Motion
Outcome
motion dismissed with costs; counter-motion dismissed with no order as to costs
Legal Topics
Taxation of Costs, Discretion Under Procedural Rules
Civil Procedure Taxation of Costs Discretion Under Procedural Rules

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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Maxims Entertainment Pty Ltd

First Applicant

Long Shong Pictures (HK) Ltd

Second Applicant

Pro-Vision Entertainment Ltd

Third Applicant

Power World Production Limited

Fourth Applicant

Rising Sun Pictures Limited

Fifth Applicant

Chinatown Enterprises Pty Limited

First Respondent

Wing Cheung

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Discretionary Relief Regarding Taxation of Costs / Post Judgment Motion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should exercise its discretion to waive procedural requirements for taxation of costs
  2. 2 Whether relief should be granted when no payment or security is offered

Ratio Decidendi

Relief was refused because the respondent failed to fulfil obligations, offered no payment or security, and the court's discretion should not be exercised to waive rules absent assurance or reason to believe payment would occur.

Court Disposition

motion dismissed with costs; counter-motion dismissed with no order as to costs

Orders

  • The motion by the third respondent is dismissed with costs.
  • The counter-motion for security for costs and summary dismissal is dismissed with no order as to costs.