Re: Noosa Waters Pty Ltd & Ors.

In the case of Noosa Waters Pty Ltd & Ors, the applicants, FAI Developments Pty Ltd and Mowete Pty Ltd, sought orders for costs against the respondents, Keenbark Pty Ltd, Oxmead Pty Ltd, Richdown Pty Ltd, and Ultraview Pty Ltd. The dispute arose from previous litigation where Noosa Waters Pty Ltd had ordered the applicants to pay costs. The applicants now sought to shift the burden of these costs to the other unitholders of the Noosa Waters Syndicate Unit Trust. The legal issues revolved around the entitlement to indemnity for costs incurred in the previous litigation and the appropriateness of shifting these costs to other parties under the circumstances.

The court considered the conduct of the directors of Noosa Waters Pty Ltd and Noosa Waters Developments Pty Ltd, as well as the overall context of the litigation. The applicants argued that the reasons for the previous judgment indicated substantial misconduct by the directors, justifying the sought orders. The court examined the applications in the originating summons OS5874/97 and the writs W7234/96 and W8176/96, noting that the applicants had relied on the previous reasons for judgment. The court also addressed the applicants' claim for indemnity costs on a solicitor and own client basis, which the respondents opposed.

The court ultimately decided that the applicants were entitled to the costs of the summons from the other unitholders. However, the court rejected the application for indemnity costs on a solicitor and own client basis, finding that the circumstances did not warrant such an order. The court made formal orders in OS5874/97, W7234/96, and W8176/96 accordingly, with the unitholders required to pay the costs of the summons but not the indemnity costs sought by the applicants.