Furniss v Blue Sky Alternative Investments Limited (No 2)

In the case of Furniss v Blue Sky Alternative Investments Limited (No 2), the applicant, Furniss, sought leave to inspect certain documents held by the respondent, Blue Sky Alternative Investments Limited, under section 247A of the Corporations Act 2001. The matter was heard in the Queensland Supreme Court, and Furniss was successful in obtaining leave to inspect the documents. The applicant then sought an order for costs under the general rule, while the respondent sought an order that each party bear their own costs. Several categories of documents sought by Furniss were abandoned on the morning of the hearing, and the scope of further categories was narrowed.

The court considered the scope of the documents originally sought, which could be divided into two groups: Item 11 and 12, which contained documents relating to insurance policies, and the other 11 categories which dealt with investment and audit documents. The court found that the respondent's submissions on the investment and audit documents were made as a whole, without addressing each category piecemeal. This had the effect of limiting the scope of documents which the court had to consider, and placed the respondent in a position that it had little time to consider. The court also considered the further narrowing of the scope of documents after judgment, finding that it showed proper and reasonable conduct by both parties in compliance with rule 5 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999.

The court considered the power of the court to award costs in respect of issues, and found that the new rule 689(1) has not introduced any marked change in the practice governing awards of costs in Queensland. The court found that the usual order as to costs ought to be applied, and ordered that the respondent pay 50% of the applicant’s costs of, and incidental to, the application heard 9 December 2020 on a standard basis.