Gordon v Glowberth Pty Ltd (No 2)

The case of Gordon v Glowberth Pty Ltd (No 2) involved the plaintiff, Gordon, seeking interim preservation and freezing orders against the defendant, Glowberth Pty Ltd. The matter was heard in a relevant Australian court. The plaintiff argued that the defendant held assets that needed to be preserved to ensure satisfaction of a potential judgment. The court was tasked with determining whether such orders should be granted in the form proposed by the plaintiff, and if so, the appropriate allocation of costs between the parties.

The legal issues before the court included the form and scope of the freezing orders necessary to adequately preserve the defendant's assets pending the final determination of the case. Additionally, the court had to decide on the appropriate costs order given the mixed outcome of the proceedings, where the plaintiff had achieved success on some issues but not others. The court's decision hinged on whether the plaintiff had acted unreasonably or whether the overall practical result of the proceedings favoured the plaintiff.

The court found that the plaintiff's proposed form of freezing orders was appropriate and necessary to ensure the preservation of the defendant's assets. The court noted that the plaintiff had not acted unreasonably and that the overall practical result of the proceedings had favoured the plaintiff. Consequently, the court exercised its discretion to award costs in the plaintiff's favour, but not as indemnity costs. Instead, the court ordered that the costs be costs in the cause, reflecting the mixed outcome of the litigation.