17 Sept 2021
Indemnity costs were refused because the applicant's conduct did not meet the high threshold of 'distinctly bad' or flagrant misconduct; increased costs were justified because the respondents reasonably expended more time than a Pickwick appearance warranted, and an uplift to 50% produced an appropriate award of $3,971.25 to be paid by the applicant to the receivers.
18 Feb 2019
The Court lacked jurisdiction to determine the interim injunction application because Viagogo had not been validly served; territorial in personam jurisdiction requires service (or court-authorised substituted service in urgent cases), no substituted service was sought, and therefore the application must await service or a substituted service order.
23 Mar 2015
The Court granted the interim injunction because the applicants established urgency, provided an undertaking as to damages, and the balance of convenience and requirement for a serious question to be tried favoured interim relief; the Court accepted litigation guardians should represent the minors; name suppression was not ordered.