In the matter of Emu Group Pty Ltd (in liq) (No 2) [2020] NSWSC 1248

In the matter of Emu Group Pty Ltd (in liq) (No 2) [2020] NSWSC 1248

Although the plaintiff failed in its interlocutory application, the circumstances, including the administrators' conduct and communications and the possibility that different conduct may have avoided the application, did not warrant departure from the default position in r 42.7(1) of the UCPR. The costs of the interlocutory process should abide the outcome of the proceedings, and the Court declined to make the costs orders sought by either party.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 September 2020
Procedural Posture
Costs Application in Equity Corporations List Proceedings / On the Papers After Refusal of Interlocutory Injunction Restraining Second Meeting of Creditors
Outcome
No costs orders made.
Legal Topics
['interlocutory Applications' 'costs in the Cause' 'voluntary Administration' 'second Meeting of Creditors' 'proof of Debt']
['costs' 'civil Procedure' 'corporations'] ['interlocutory Applications' 'costs in the Cause' 'voluntary Administration' 'second Meeting of Creditors' 'proof of Debt']

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 Application in Equity Corporations List Proceedings / On the Papers After Refusal of Interlocutory Injunction Restraining Second Meeting of Creditors

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the plaintiff should pay the administrators' costs of and incidental to the hearing on 15 May 2020 and the costs of the costs issue." 'Whether there was reason to depart from the default position in r 42.7 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) for costs of interlocutory applications.' "Whether the administrators' failure to notify the plaintiff of the first creditors' meeting and later communications justified withholding the costs orders sought by the administrators."]

Ratio Decidendi

Although the plaintiff failed in its interlocutory application, the circumstances, including the administrators' conduct and communications and the possibility that different conduct may have avoided the application, did not warrant departure from the default position in r 42.7(1) of the UCPR. The costs of the interlocutory process should abide the outcome of the proceedings, and the Court declined to make the costs orders sought by either party.

Court Disposition

No costs orders made.

Orders

  • ['No costs orders made.']