The J. Aron Corporation & Anor v Newmont Yandal Operations Pty Ltd & 2 Ors [2005] NSWSC 182
The further matters about voting statistics and mine valuation would not have altered the dismissal of the interlocutory injunction because the application was accepted to raise a serious question to be tried and failed on the balance of convenience, which those matters could not have affected. The plaintiffs, having unsuccessfully sought interlocutory relief and having come to court unprepared to provide the usual undertaking as to damages or demonstrate financial substance while allowing the court to be told the plaintiff was a non-existent United States corporation, engaged in relevant delinquency warranting indemnity costs. There was no special basis to award the non-party leave...
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 11 March 2005
- Procedural Posture
- Costs Application in Corporations Proceedings Following Dismissal of an Interlocutory Injunction Application / Re Opened Hearing on Costs After Unsuccessful Interlocutory Injunction Application
- Outcome
- Plaintiffs ordered to pay defendants' indemnity costs of the unsuccessful interlocutory injunction application and to pay the costs of the defendants and persons granted leave to be heard for the costs hearings.
- Legal Topics
- ['interlocutory Injunctions' 'indemnity Costs' 'costs of Non Parties Granted Leave to Be Heard' 'undertaking as to Damages' 'balance of Convenience' 're Opening Costs Argument']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Costs Application in Corporations Proceedings Following Dismissal of an Interlocutory Injunction Application / Re Opened Hearing on Costs After Unsuccessful Interlocutory Injunction Application
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether further evidence about voting statistics and Wiluna gold mine valuation could have affected the outcome of the interlocutory injunction application and therefore the costs order.' 'Whether persons granted leave to be heard under rule 2.13 of the Supreme Court (Corporations) Rules 1999 should be awarded costs.' "Whether the plaintiffs should pay the defendants' costs of the unsuccessful interlocutory injunction application on the indemnity basis." "Whether the defendants' costs should be ordered to be paid forthwith."]
Ratio Decidendi
The further matters about voting statistics and mine valuation would not have altered the dismissal of the interlocutory injunction because the application was accepted to raise a serious question to be tried and failed on the balance of convenience, which those matters could not have affected. The plaintiffs, having unsuccessfully sought interlocutory relief and having come to court unprepared to provide the usual undertaking as to damages or demonstrate financial substance while allowing the court to be told the plaintiff was a non-existent United States corporation, engaged in relevant delinquency warranting indemnity costs. There was no special basis to award the non-party leave...
Court Disposition
Plaintiffs ordered to pay defendants' indemnity costs of the unsuccessful interlocutory injunction application and to pay the costs of the defendants and persons granted leave to be heard for the costs hearings.
Orders
- ['Order that the costs of the defendants, being costs of and incidental to the application for an interlocutory injunction determined on 8 September 2003, be paid by the plaintiffs, such costs to be assessed on the indemnity basis.' 'Order that the costs of the defendants and the costs of persons granted leave...
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment