McCa Asset Management Ltd v Kamata Homes Pty Ltd (Admins Appointed) (No 2)

The case of McCa Asset Management Ltd v Kamata Homes Pty Ltd (Admins Appointed) (No 2) involves the plaintiffs seeking an order that the second and third defendants pay their costs on an indemnity basis. The court considered the issue of costs following a five-day trial that had commenced on 19 August 2019. The trial was adjourned to allow the administrators to convene a further meeting of creditors, during which the creditors would be provided with additional information. The plaintiffs argued that the failure to provide this information to the creditors was a material omission, which could have affected their voting intentions. The court ultimately rejected the plaintiffs' argument and dismissed their application for an indemnity costs order.

The legal issues the court was required to decide included whether the plaintiffs' conduct resulted in a waste of court time, and whether the plaintiffs breached their overarching obligations to co-operate with other parties and the court in connection with the conduct of the proceedings. The court found that the plaintiffs' conduct did result in a waste of court time and breached their overarching obligations. The court also found that the plaintiffs had failed to provide evidence that addressed the issue of whether any of the 57 creditors who voted in favour of the deed would have voted differently if they were aware that the properties securing the director's contribution were on the market. The court concluded that the plaintiffs' success in the proceedings did not justify an indemnity costs order.

The court ordered that the plaintiffs pay the defendants' costs of and incidental to three wasted days on an indemnity basis. The court also ordered that the plaintiffs pay the administrators' costs and expenses in connection with the further meeting of creditors. The court found that the plaintiffs' conduct resulted in a waste of court time and breached their overarching obligations to co-operate with other parties and the court. The court concluded that the plaintiffs' success in the proceedings did not justify an indemnity costs order, but that the plaintiffs should be held accountable for the wasted court time. The court ordered that the plaintiffs pay the defendants' costs on an indemnity basis, and that the plaintiffs pay the administrators' costs and expenses in connection with the further meeting of creditors.