Jordan v Step Ahead Security Pty Ltd ACN 102 803 181 [2006] FCA 827

Jordan v Step Ahead Security Pty Ltd ACN 102 803 181 [2006] FCA 827

The applicant was justified in commencing the winding up application because the statutory demand was properly served and the respondent's earlier objections had little substance. However, after the respondent offered on 23 May 2006 to pay the judgment debt pending its application to set aside the default judgment, the applicant should have negotiated a basis to hold the proceedings in abeyance. Accordingly, the respondent was ordered to pay the applicant's costs only up to and including 23 May 2006, with no order for costs thereafter.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 June 2006
Procedural Posture
Application for a Winding Up Order Following Service of a Statutory Demand / Application Dismissed at the Request of the Applicant; Costs Determined
Outcome
Application dismissed; respondent ordered to pay the applicant's costs up to and including 23 May 2006; no order as to costs after 23 May 2006.
Legal Topics
['statutory Demand' 'winding Up Application' 'default Judgment' 'application to Set Aside Judgment' 'costs']
['corporations Law' 'insolvency' 'civil Procedure'] ['statutory Demand' 'winding Up Application' 'default Judgment' 'application to Set Aside Judgment' 'costs']

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

Application for a Winding Up Order Following Service of a Statutory Demand / Application Dismissed at the Request of the Applicant; Costs Determined

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicant should receive costs after dismissal of the application.' 'Whether the applicant was justified in commencing the winding up application after service of the statutory demand.' "Whether the respondent's 23 May 2006 offer to pay the judgment debt pending an application to set aside judgment provided a reasonable basis to hold the winding up proceedings in abeyance."]

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant was justified in commencing the winding up application because the statutory demand was properly served and the respondent's earlier objections had little substance. However, after the respondent offered on 23 May 2006 to pay the judgment debt pending its application to set aside the default judgment, the applicant should have negotiated a basis to hold the proceedings in abeyance. Accordingly, the respondent was ordered to pay the applicant's costs only up to and including 23 May 2006, with no order for costs thereafter.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; respondent ordered to pay the applicant's costs up to and including 23 May 2006; no order as to costs after 23 May 2006.

Orders

  • ['The application stand dismissed.' "The respondent pay the applicant's costs up to and including 23 May 2006." 'There be no order as to costs incurred after 23 May 2006.']