JAHAD v Equitable Financial Solutions Pty Ltd

The applicant, JAHAD, commenced proceedings against the first respondent, Equitable Financial Solutions Pty Ltd, and the second respondent, Usman Siddiqui. The dispute arose from an investment program where the first respondent, acting as a Wakeel agent, accepted funds from the applicant for Shariah-compliant investments. The investments were not fully repaid, and despite a determination by the Credit and Investments Ombudsman requiring repayment, the first respondent failed to do so. The proceedings were allocated to the Consumer Protection List. The first respondent was subsequently placed in administration, and the second respondent, who was overseas and uncontactable, did not provide instructions. The applicant later discontinued the proceeding, and the second respondent sought costs on an indemnity or party/party basis. The matter came before Judge A Kelly.

The court was required to determine whether to set aside a prior costs order made against the second respondent and whether to grant the second respondent's applications for costs on an indemnity or party/party basis. The court also considered the applicable principles for awarding costs, including discretionary considerations and the relevance of the parties' conduct.

Judge A Kelly dismissed the application to set aside the order for costs made against the second respondent on 12 November 2019. The court also dismissed the second respondent's applications for costs on an indemnity or party/party basis. The reasoning for these decisions is not detailed in the provided text, but the court directed that the Registrar furnish a copy of the reasons for judgment to the Australian Securities and Investments Commission.