Mudgee Dolomite & Lime Pty Ltd v Robert Francis Murdoch; In the matter of Mudgee Dolomite & Lime Pty Ltd [2020] NSWSC 1675

COSTS - Basis of quantification - Four separate proceedings heard together - Overlapping parties where Plaintiffs in certain proceedings were Defendants in others - Parties successful on certain claims and unsuccessful in others - Whether appropriate for no order as to costs across all proceedings - Where successful and unsuccessful claims within a proceeding.

John Kelly SC, Howard Insall SC, and Dr. Christos Mantziaris represented Robert Murdoch interests.

The reasons for the decision can be found here.

Walton v Commonwealth Bank of Australia [2020] NSWCA 191

CIVIL PROCEDURE — Discontinuance — Costs — No consent to discontinue without paying costs — Plaintiff sought leave to discontinue with no order as to costs — Proceedings lacking practical utility — Both defendants impecunious — Defendants’ cross-claim abandoned — No right by way of defence and set-off to recover any amount exceeding the debt owed to the plaintiff — Litigation had begun to “feed on itself” — Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), r 12.1.

COSTS — Discontinuance — Usual rule that discontinuing party pay defendant’s costs — Power to order otherwise — Plaintiff sought leave to discontinue with no order as to costs — Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) (UCPR), r 42.19(2).

Tim Castle SC represented the Respondent.

Reasons for the decision can be found here.

ACN 153 364 491 Ltd (in liq) v GP No 1 (in liq), in the matter of GP No 1 (in liq) [2018] FCA 1933

COSTS – application by the defendants for an order that the plaintiff provide security for costs – application brought under s 1335 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) and r 19.01 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) – where principal order sought by the defendants is that the plaintiff provide security for costs in a fixed amount or some other amount as is determined by the Court – where defendants seek a further order that the proceeding be stayed until the amount sought is paid into Court and an order that if that is not done, the proceeding be dismissed with costs – whether power to order security for costs under s 1335(1) of the Corporations Act is engaged because there is credible evidence which establishes that there “is reason to believe that the corporation will be unable to pay the costs of the defendant if successful in his, her or its defence” – consideration of the timing of defendants’ application for security for costs – preliminary consideration of the merits of the plaintiff’s claim –whether plaintiff’s present impecuniosity is due to the defendants’ failure to pay – whether proceeding will be stifled if security is ordered.

Tim Castle represented the Plaintiff.

Reasons for the judgement can be found here.

Luo v Windy Hills Australian Game Meats Pty Ltd (No 2) [2018] NSWSC 1139 (24 July 2018)

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – COSTS – Security for costs – individual plaintiff ordinarily resident outside Australia – corporate defendant admittedly unable to meet a costs order – whether security for costs should be refused because of the merits of the plaintiffs’ claim – relevance of defendants’ failure to comply with undertaking given to the Court – whether ordering security will stultify proceedings – other factors said to be relevant to exercise of discretion.

David Rayment represented the Plaintiffs/Respondents.

Reasons for the decision can be found here.

Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Daleport Pty Ltd (in receivership) (No 5) [2018] NSWSC 1935

COSTS – application for costs order entered be varied – application for gross sum costs order – where defendant rejected the plaintiff’s offer of payment and sought assessment of costs – where plaintiff previously sought assessment of costs and opposed any lump sum quantification - whether plaintiff’s position should be characterised as a capitulation.

Tim Castle represented the Plaintiff.

Reasons for the judgement can be found here.

Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Daleport Pty Limited (in receivership) (No 4) [2018] NSWSC 842

COSTS – application for payment forthwith – consideration of relevant factors – protracted dispute as to discovery – where refusal to order payment forthwith would stultify defence of bank’s claim – whether defence of claim futile – whether payment forthwith should be refused on that basis.

Tim Castle represented the Plaintiff.

Reasons for the judgement can be found here.

Rekrut and Scott v Champion Homes Sales Pty Ltd; Champion Homes Sales Pty Ltd v Rekrut and Scott [2018] NSWCATAP 97

From the New South Wales Civil & Administrative Tribunal Appeal Panel:

COSTS – NCAT Internal appeal – amount in issue in excess of $30,000 – r 38A of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Rules 2014 (NSW) and cl 20(4) of the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal Regulation 2009 (NSW) – no issue of principle

COSTS – general rule that costs follow the event – application of the rule and discretion – no issue of principle

Michelle McMahon appeared for Adam Rekrut and Sandra Scott.

Arab Bank of Australia Ltd v Jeitani (No. 2) [2016] NSWSC 726

COSTS – multiple issues - three separate claims in cross-claim – each party successful on one claim – third claim settled – whether costs should be apportioned – set-off of competing costs orders.

Tim D. Castle appeared for Arab Bank Australia Ltd.