Perpetual Nominees Limited v Storehouse Managed Investments Limited

In the case of Perpetual Nominees Limited v Storehouse Managed Investments Limited, the court was called upon to decide an application for the defendant to be required to pay the plaintiffs’ costs. The dispute arose from a settlement of proceedings between the parties, which occurred on the eve of the hearing. The plaintiffs argued that the defendant’s conduct in settling the proceedings constituted a capitulation, warranting an order for the defendant to pay their costs. The defendant, in turn, contended that their actions were constrained by their constitution and that the plaintiffs had no reasonable cause for instituting the proceedings.

The legal issues before the court involved whether the defendant’s conduct in settling the proceedings on the eve of the hearing constituted capitulation, whether the defendant was responsible for the institution of the proceedings by the plaintiffs, and whether the defendant’s conduct was a result of being bound by their constitution, thereby preventing them from complying with the plaintiffs’ requests. Additionally, the court had to determine whether the plaintiffs had reasonable cause for instituting the proceedings.

The court found that the defendant’s conduct in settling the proceedings on the eve of the hearing did not amount to capitulation. It was established that the defendant’s actions were constrained by their constitution, which prevented them from complying with the plaintiffs’ requests. Furthermore, it was determined that the plaintiffs did not have reasonable cause for instituting the proceedings. Consequently, the application for the defendant to be required to pay the plaintiffs’ costs was dismissed.

The court's final order was that Storehouse Managed Investments Limited was not required to pay the costs of Perpetual Nominees Limited.