Medina Property Services Pty Ltd v Starin Ltd as trustee of the Macquarie Business Centre Unit Trust (No 2)
Case
•
[2019] NSWSC 545
•15 May 2019
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Medina Property Services Pty Ltd v Starin Ltd as trustee of the Macquarie Business Centre Unit Trust (No 2) [2019] NSWSC 545
[2019] NSWSC 545
15 May 2019
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The matter before the court was an appeal against the costs orders made in the first instance proceedings between Medina Property Services Pty Ltd and Starin Ltd as trustee of the Macquarie Business Centre Unit Trust (No 2). The dispute originated from an agreement for the sale of shares in a company, where the buyer defaulted on the payment obligations. The seller then sought to enforce the agreement through the courts, but the proceedings were ultimately discontinued. Both parties sought to have the other bear the costs of the proceedings.
The primary legal issue was whether the general rule that costs follow the event should be applied, or whether the conduct of the parties warranted an exception to this rule. Specifically, the court had to determine if the parties had effectively capitulated or acted unreasonably in a manner that should result in them bearing their own costs.
The court found that the general rule that costs follow the event should apply in this case, as neither party had effectively capitulated nor acted unreasonably. The court noted that both parties had acted in accordance with their legal rights and had not acted unreasonably in discontinuing the proceedings. As such, neither party should bear the costs of the other. The court dismissed the appeal and ordered that each party bear their own costs of the appeal.
The primary legal issue was whether the general rule that costs follow the event should be applied, or whether the conduct of the parties warranted an exception to this rule. Specifically, the court had to determine if the parties had effectively capitulated or acted unreasonably in a manner that should result in them bearing their own costs.
The court found that the general rule that costs follow the event should apply in this case, as neither party had effectively capitulated nor acted unreasonably. The court noted that both parties had acted in accordance with their legal rights and had not acted unreasonably in discontinuing the proceedings. As such, neither party should bear the costs of the other. The court dismissed the appeal and ordered that each party bear their own costs of the appeal.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Civil Litigation & Procedure
Legal Concepts
-
Costs
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
1
Statutory Material Cited
1