Abdi v Equitable Financial Solutions Pty Ltd & Anor

In the proceeding before Judge A Kelly, the applicant, Abdi, had initiated legal action against the first respondent, Equitable Financial Solutions Pty Ltd, and the second respondent, Usman Siddiqui. The dispute arose from an investment program where the first respondent, acting as a Wakeel agent, accepted funds from the applicant for Shariah-compliant investments. Following the first respondent's failure to fully repay the principal and profit, and despite a determination by the Credit and Investments Ombudsman requiring repayment, the applicant commenced proceedings. The matter was allocated to the Consumer Protection List, and subsequent to the first respondent entering administration and the second respondent failing to provide instructions, costs were ordered. The proceeding was later set down for hearing, at which point the jurisdiction was challenged, leading the applicant to discontinue the proceeding. The second respondent then sought costs on an indemnity or party/party basis.

The court was required to determine whether to set aside a prior costs order made against the second respondent and to consider the second respondent's applications for indemnity or party/party costs following the applicant's discontinuance of the proceeding. The court also had to consider the broader discretionary factors relevant to awarding costs, including the conduct of the parties.

Judge A Kelly dismissed the application to set aside the order for costs made against the second respondent on 12 November 2019. Furthermore, the court dismissed the second respondent's applications for indemnity or party/party costs. The reasoning behind these decisions was not detailed in the provided text, but the court exercised its discretion in relation to costs. As a consequence of the judgment, the Registrar of the Court was directed to provide a copy of the reasons for judgment to the Australian Securities and Investments Commission.