Ageist Pty Ltd v Samuel M Holdings Pty Ltd (Receiver and Manager Appointed) (No 2)

Agist Pty Ltd brought proceedings against Samuel M Holdings Pty Ltd, which had a receiver and manager appointed, concerning an alleged breach of contract. The defendants, who were self-represented, lodged caveats to prevent the sale of the property in question. Agist sought an order for the caveats to be removed on an indemnity costs basis, arguing that the caveats had no reasonable prospects of success and were lodged solely to delay the property sale. The defendants opposed the application on the basis that they were not bound by the principle in Allcard v Skinner that self-represented litigants should not be penalised for their lack of legal representation.

The court considered whether the defendants' conduct warranted an indemnity costs order. It noted that the defendants were aware that the caveats had no reasonable prospects of success and were only lodging them to prevent the sale of the property. The court found that the defendants' conduct was vexatious and oppressive, and that an indemnity costs order was appropriate. The court emphasised that the issue of principle was not whether self-represented litigants should be penalised, but whether their conduct was vexatious and oppressive.

Accordingly, the court ordered that the caveats be removed and that the defendants pay Agist's costs on an indemnity basis. The court noted that the defendants' conduct warranted such an order, and that there was no issue of principle that prevented the imposition of indemnity costs against self-represented litigants in these circumstances. The defendants were ordered to pay Agist's costs of the application on an indemnity basis.