In the matter of Natural Raw C Pty Ltd (No 3)

The case of Natural Raw C Pty Ltd (No 3) involves the dispute between two parties, Natural Raw C Pty Ltd and another party, over the price of shares. The proceedings were heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The primary issue the court had to decide was whether the hearing to determine the price of the shares was the result of a compromise of the substantive proceedings and whether it constituted an "event" for the purposes of awarding costs under the party/party costs regime.

The court considered whether the hearing to determine the price of the shares was the result of a compromise of the substantive proceedings. The court examined the nature of the compromise and whether it was a genuine attempt to resolve the dispute. The court also considered the implications of a Calderbank offer, which is an offer to settle on terms that are favourable to the offeree, on the determination of costs. The court found that the hearing to determine the price of the shares was indeed the result of a compromise of the substantive proceedings. However, the court held that the compromise did not constitute an "event" for the purposes of awarding costs under the party/party costs regime. The court reasoned that the compromise was not a separate event but rather a continuation of the substantive proceedings. As a result, the costs incurred in the hearing to determine the price of the shares were not recoverable under the party/party costs regime.

The court held that the party/party costs regime applies to costs incurred in the substantive proceedings. However, costs incurred in a hearing to determine the price of shares, which is a result of a compromise of the substantive proceedings, are not recoverable under the party/party costs regime. The court held that the compromise did not constitute an "event" for the purposes of awarding costs. Therefore, the party who incurred the costs in the hearing to determine the price of the shares was not entitled to recover those costs under the party/party costs regime.

The final order of the court was that the party who incurred the costs in the hearing to determine the price of the shares was not entitled to recover those costs under the party/party costs regime. The court held that the compromise did not constitute an "event" for the purposes of awarding costs. The court also held that the party/party costs regime applies to costs incurred in the substantive proceedings, and costs incurred in a hearing to determine the price of shares, which is a result of a compromise of the substantive proceedings, are not recoverable under the party/party costs regime.