Re Myao Travel Pty Ltd

The case of Re Myao Travel Pty Ltd involved a winding up application initiated by the plaintiff, which was subsequently dismissed. The defendant, Myao Travel Pty Ltd, applied for costs under the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules (UCPR) rule 42.20. The central issue before the court was whether the defendant was entitled to costs as a result of the dismissal of the winding up application, and whether the plaintiff should be ordered to pay those costs despite the absence of a determination on the merits.

The court considered the default provision in UCPR rule 42.20, which generally mandates that costs follow the event. However, the court also contemplated whether it should depart from this ordinary position. The plaintiff had been notified of the grounds of opposition to the winding up but these grounds were not self-evident from the evidence available to the plaintiff. Additionally, the dismissal of the proceedings was not solely due to the defendant's actions after the proceedings began. The court also took into account the Calderbank offers made by the defendant, determining it was not unreasonable for the plaintiff not to accept these offers.

After weighing these factors, the court decided that the ordinary position on costs should not be departed from in this case. The dismissal of the winding up application was not due to the defendant’s actions post-commencement of the proceedings, and the plaintiff had not unreasonably refused the Calderbank offers. Consequently, the court ruled that the plaintiff was not liable for the defendant's costs. The final order was that the plaintiff was not to pay the defendant's costs.