In the matter of TEN Network Holdings Limited (Admins Apptd) (Recs and Mgrs Apptd) and Others [2017] NSWSC 1359

In the matter of TEN Network Holdings Limited (Admins Apptd) (Recs and Mgrs Apptd) and Others [2017] NSWSC 1359

Where the factual context of the litigation was materially altered by the Administrators' issuance of a supplemental report prior to hearing, and the Plaintiffs’ ultimate claims failed, but the merits of the earlier factual position were left undetermined, the appropriate order is that each party bears its own costs up to the date of the supplemental report, with costs following the event thereafter. No basis was established for an order requiring the Administrators to pay the costs of the CBS Defendants, nor for a Sanderson order, as the Plaintiffs' case against CBS failed independently of the supplemental report and the Administrators were not unsuccessful defendants.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 October 2017
Procedural Posture
Costs Application in Equity (corporations) Proceedings / Post Judgment Determination of Costs
Outcome
Costs orders as specified: each party bears its own costs between Plaintiffs and First to Seventeenth Defendants up to and including 11 September 2017; Plaintiffs to pay First to Seventeenth Defendants' costs from 12 September 2017; Plaintiffs to pay Eighteenth to Twentieth Defendants' costs.
Legal Topics
['costs' 'administration of Insolvent Companies' "creditors' Meetings" 'corporate Restructuring' 'litigation Conduct']
['corporations Law' 'civil Procedure'] ['costs' 'administration of Insolvent Companies' "creditors' Meetings" 'corporate Restructuring' 'litigation Conduct']

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) Proceedings / Post Judgment Determination of Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Appropriate orders as to costs in circumstances where the factual substrate was changed by a supplemental report from the Administrators before hearing and the Plaintiffs were unsuccessful' "Whether the Administrators or Plaintiffs should pay certain Defendants' costs up to a specific date" 'Whether a Sanderson order should be made as between Defendants']

Ratio Decidendi

Where the factual context of the litigation was materially altered by the Administrators' issuance of a supplemental report prior to hearing, and the Plaintiffs’ ultimate claims failed, but the merits of the earlier factual position were left undetermined, the appropriate order is that each party bears its own costs up to the date of the supplemental report, with costs following the event thereafter. No basis was established for an order requiring the Administrators to pay the costs of the CBS Defendants, nor for a Sanderson order, as the Plaintiffs' case against CBS failed independently of the supplemental report and the Administrators were not unsuccessful defendants.

Court Disposition

Costs orders as specified: each party bears its own costs between Plaintiffs and First to Seventeenth Defendants up to and including 11 September 2017; Plaintiffs to pay First to Seventeenth Defendants' costs from 12 September 2017; Plaintiffs to pay Eighteenth to Twentieth Defendants' costs.

Orders

  • ['No order as to costs as between Plaintiffs and First to Seventeenth Defendants up to and including 11 September 2017.' "Plaintiffs to pay First to Seventeenth Defendants' costs from 12 September 2017 on an ordinary basis as agreed or assessed." "Plaintiffs to pay Eighteenth to Twentieth Defendants' costs on an...