Penson v Titan National Pty Ltd (No 2)

The applicant, Penson, sought leave to appeal from a decision of the primary judge concerning costs orders made against him personally in proceedings involving Titan National Pty Ltd. The dispute centred on whether the primary judge had erred in their application of legal authorities and in considering the conduct of related proceedings in the District Court when making the costs orders.

The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the primary judge had made an error in their use of authorities, whether they had erroneously had regard to the conduct of related District Court proceedings, and whether the order for costs against the director personally was inconsistent with section 466 of the *Corporations Act 2001* (Cth).

The Court of Appeal found no error in the primary judge's reasoning. It held that the primary judge had not erred in their use of authorities or in considering the related District Court proceedings. Furthermore, the Court determined that section 466 of the *Corporations Act 2001* (Cth) permits "otherwise" orders, meaning the personal costs order against the director was permissible. Consequently, the Court concluded that the applicant had not brought any reasonably arguable grounds for appeal.

Accordingly, leave to appeal was refused, and the applicant was ordered to pay the respondents’ costs.