Newlinx Pty Ltd v Domain Gray Pty Ltd
Case
•
[2018] QSC 256
•9 November 2018
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Newlinx Pty Ltd v Domain Gray Pty Ltd [2018] QSC 256
[2018] QSC 256
9 November 2018
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the matter of Newlinx Pty Ltd v Domain Gray Pty Ltd, the defendants sought an order that costs awarded against the plaintiffs be paid by the liquidator of one of the plaintiffs, and by two directors of the other plaintiff. The plaintiffs, Newlinx and Bargara Property Developments Pty Ltd (in liquidation), had originally sought damages from the defendants for the sale of two units. The defendants were successful in obtaining summary judgment, and sought to have the costs of the proceedings paid by the liquidator of Bargara PD and by two directors of Newlinx. The court had to determine whether the interests of justice favoured such an order.
The court held that making a costs order against a non-party is an exceptional course, and is only appropriate if it is necessary to ensure justice is done. The court found that there were no exceptional circumstances that warranted making such an order against the liquidator or the directors. The liquidator had no personal liability for the costs, and the directors were not responsible for the conduct that gave rise to the costs. The court noted that the defendants had not provided any evidence to support their application, and that the liquidator and directors had not acted improperly.
The application was dismissed, and the defendants were ordered to pay the costs of the application. The court found that the defendants' application was an abuse of process, and that the liquidator and directors were not liable for the costs of the proceedings. The court emphasised the importance of ensuring that costs orders are not used as a tool for punishing non-parties, and that they should only be made in exceptional circumstances. The orders of the Court were that the application filed 5 October 2017 is dismissed, and that the first, second and third defendants/applicants pay the costs of and incidental to the application of the respondents on the standard and indemnity basis.
The court held that making a costs order against a non-party is an exceptional course, and is only appropriate if it is necessary to ensure justice is done. The court found that there were no exceptional circumstances that warranted making such an order against the liquidator or the directors. The liquidator had no personal liability for the costs, and the directors were not responsible for the conduct that gave rise to the costs. The court noted that the defendants had not provided any evidence to support their application, and that the liquidator and directors had not acted improperly.
The application was dismissed, and the defendants were ordered to pay the costs of the application. The court found that the defendants' application was an abuse of process, and that the liquidator and directors were not liable for the costs of the proceedings. The court emphasised the importance of ensuring that costs orders are not used as a tool for punishing non-parties, and that they should only be made in exceptional circumstances. The orders of the Court were that the application filed 5 October 2017 is dismissed, and that the first, second and third defendants/applicants pay the costs of and incidental to the application of the respondents on the standard and indemnity basis.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Civil Litigation & Procedure
Legal Concepts
-
Costs
-
Summary Judgment
-
Standing
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
7
Statutory Material Cited
1
Gdanski v Palms Court Management Pty Ltd
[2017] VSCA 348
Knight v FP Special Assets Ltd
[1992] HCA 28