Mizuho Bank Ltd v Mark Anthony Ackroyd [No 2]

In the matter of Mizuho Bank Ltd versus Mark Anthony Ackroyd, the defendant, Mr Ackroyd, had brought a motion to stay the proceedings on the basis that they were an abuse of process. The court was required to determine whether the motion was valid and, if so, whether the defendant was entitled to an order for costs. The dispute involved claims against Mr Ackroyd for money owed to the plaintiff, Mizuho Bank Ltd, under a guarantee agreement.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the defendant was entitled to an order for costs due to the unsuccessful motion to stay. The court needed to consider whether the motion was frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of process, and whether these factors warranted a departure from the usual rule that costs follow the event. The court also had to consider whether the defendant's reliance on an inapplicable section of the Corporations Act was a factor that should be taken into account in determining whether the motion was frivolous or vexatious.

The court held that the motion to stay was not frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of process, and therefore there was no basis for departing from the usual rule that costs follow the event. The court also found that the defendant's reliance on an inapplicable section of the Corporations Act was not a factor that warranted a departure from this rule. The court therefore dismissed the defendant's motion for an order for costs. The court did not make any orders as to costs.