Bloc (ACT) Pty Ltd v Crafted Holdings Pty Ltd

Bloc (ACT) Pty Ltd, the applicant, sought leave to appeal from an interlocutory costs decision made by Mossop J of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory. The dispute arose from proceedings concerning the winding up of Crafted Capitol Pty Ltd, where the applicant sought costs on a solicitor-client basis following the dismissal of an application by Crafted Holdings Pty Ltd and Crafted Central Pty Ltd to terminate the winding up. The applicant contended that the primary judge erred in not awarding costs in its favour, particularly in light of an offer of compromise it had made and its entitlement to seek costs under section 482 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).

The court was required to determine whether to grant leave to appeal from the interlocutory decision, considering the principles governing such applications, particularly where the decision involves the exercise of discretion and relates to practice and procedure. Specifically, the court had to assess whether the primary judge's costs decision was attended with sufficient doubt to warrant reconsideration, or if substantial injustice would result if leave were refused, assuming the decision to be wrong. The applicant argued that the primary judge incorrectly disregarded its offer of compromise and failed to properly consider the application of section 482 of the Corporations Act.

The court applied the principles for granting leave to appeal from interlocutory decisions, noting that leave is granted sparingly, especially in matters of practice, procedure, or discretion. The court found that the primary judge's decision was not attended with sufficient doubt to warrant reconsideration. While the applicant had made an offer of compromise, the primary judge had considered it and determined that, regardless of its engagement, the appropriate order was no order as to costs between the parties to finalise the proceedings. Furthermore, the primary judge had exercised his discretion under section 482 of the Corporations Act, concluding that it was desirable to deal with costs in a way that finalised the proceedings and prevented further litigation. The court held that this exercise of discretion, aimed at finalising the matter, did not exhibit attributes that would overcome the hesitancy required to grant leave to appeal from a discretionary decision.

Consequently, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed, with costs awarded to the respondents.