Vis Visitor Investments Services Pty Ltd v Hawkesbury Riverside Retreat Ltd & 6 Ors [2004] NSWSC 1188

Vis Visitor Investments Services Pty Ltd v Hawkesbury Riverside Retreat Ltd & 6 Ors [2004] NSWSC 1188

No order as to costs is made because the court was not confident the plaintiff was almost certain to have succeeded if the merits were fully tried, nor was unreasonable conduct shown by either party; consent orders resolved the principal dispute, and the general rule that costs follow the event does not apply in these circumstances.

Parties
Plaintiff: Vis Visitor Investment Services Pty Limited; First Defendant: Hawkesbury Riverside Retreat Limited; Second Defendant: Schon G Condon; Third Defendant: Glenys Joy Gilling; Fourth Defendant: Michael Stephen Burcher; Fifth Defendant: Kenneth Charles Jackson; Sixth Defendant: Stephen William Williams; Seventh Defendant: Debra Jayne Ronan
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 December 2004
Procedural Posture
Corporations Matter / Costs Determination After Principal Dispute Resolved by Consent Orders
Outcome
No order as to costs
Legal Topics
Costs, Voluntary Administration, Consent Orders, Discontinuance
Corporations Law Civil Procedure Costs Voluntary Administration Consent Orders Discontinuance

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 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Vis Visitor Investment Services Pty Limited

Plaintiff

Hawkesbury Riverside Retreat Limited

First Defendant

Schon G Condon

Second Defendant

Glenys Joy Gilling

Third Defendant

Michael Stephen Burcher

Fourth Defendant

Kenneth Charles Jackson

Fifth Defendant

Stephen William Williams

Sixth Defendant

Debra Jayne Ronan

Seventh Defendant

Procedural Posture

Corporations Matter / Costs Determination After Principal Dispute Resolved by Consent Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether discontinuance of ancillary claims gave rise to an 'event' for costs purposes
  2. 2 Whether strength of plaintiff's case shown sufficiently to warrant costs order despite compromise

Ratio Decidendi

No order as to costs is made because the court was not confident the plaintiff was almost certain to have succeeded if the merits were fully tried, nor was unreasonable conduct shown by either party; consent orders resolved the principal dispute, and the general rule that costs follow the event does not apply in these circumstances.

Court Disposition

No order as to costs

Orders

  • No order as to costs; all parties bear their own costs respectively.