ISIS Projects v Clarence Street

ISIS Projects brought a proceeding against Clarence Street seeking an order that it be subrogated to the rights of a trustee, which would allow it to claim an indemnity out of trust assets. The dispute was resolved without a hearing on the merits, and the case was determined on the basis of an agreed statement of facts. The primary issue for the court was whether any party had a substantial success, and whether the plaintiff had acted reasonably in bringing the proceeding. The court also considered whether any party was almost certain to have succeeded, and whether orders as to costs were appropriate.

The court found that none of the parties had a substantial success, as the dispute was resolved without a hearing on the merits. The court also found that the plaintiff had acted reasonably in bringing the proceedings, as there was a genuine and arguable case for the relief sought. The court held that the plaintiff was not almost certain to have succeeded, as there were significant questions of law and fact that remained unresolved. The court concluded that orders as to costs were appropriate, and that the plaintiff should be awarded costs on an indemnity basis.

The court held that the creditor could not have priority over purchasers of trust assets from the trustee, as the creditor had not acted with reasonable promptness in seeking to enforce its rights. The court found that the creditor had delayed in bringing the proceeding, and had not acted with the necessary urgency to establish its priority over the purchasers. The court held that the creditor's delay had prejudiced the purchasers, and that it would be unjust to allow the creditor to assert its rights against the purchasers.

The court ordered that the plaintiff be awarded costs of the proceeding on an indemnity basis, and that the defendants pay those costs within 28 days. The court also ordered that the plaintiff's claim for subrogation be dismissed, and that the defendants be exonerated from any further liability in relation to the proceeding. The court held that the dismissal of the claim for subrogation did not affect the rights of any party in relation to the trust assets, and that the parties were free to pursue any other available remedies.