Aurora Funds Management Limited v Bond Street Custodians Limited

The case of Aurora Funds Management Limited versus Bond Street Custodians Limited was brought before the court, with Aurora seeking indemnity costs following a summary dismissal of their action. Aurora had originally sued Bond Street, alleging breaches of contract and other related claims, but later agreed to dismiss their action. The issue at hand was whether Aurora was entitled to indemnity costs given their decision to dismiss the action after having obtained a consent order for summary dismissal, particularly as Aurora had surrendered and acted unreasonably in doing so.

The court considered the principles governing indemnity costs, focusing on whether Aurora's conduct warranted such an award. It noted that indemnity costs are typically awarded when a party acts unreasonably in pursuing or defending a claim. The court observed that Aurora's decision to dismiss their action after having secured a consent order for summary dismissal, and the circumstances leading to the surrender, demonstrated unreasonable conduct. The court found that Aurora had acted unreasonably in dismissing their action, as they had effectively obtained the relief they sought through the summary dismissal, and had then sought indemnity costs.

In light of Aurora's unreasonable conduct, the court awarded indemnity costs to Bond Street for a specified period. This decision underscored the importance of parties acting reasonably in the pursuit or defence of claims, particularly when seeking indemnity costs following a dismissal. The court's ruling emphasised the need for parties to consider the implications of their actions carefully, particularly in the context of consent orders and summary dismissals. The final orders included the award of indemnity costs to Bond Street for the period specified in the judgment.