Royal v El Ali (No 3)

The case of Royal v El Ali (No 3) was heard in a NSW court and involved a dispute over costs related to two separate proceedings brought by the applicants against the respondents. The applicants sought a lump-sum costs order for the two proceedings, while the respondents contested the fairness and appropriateness of such an order. Additionally, the applicants argued for an indemnity principle to apply, and the respondents raised concerns about the apportionment methodology between the two proceedings.

The court needed to determine whether it was appropriate and practicable to make a lump-sum costs order in this case, and if so, what the appropriate apportionment between the two proceedings should be. The court also had to consider whether there could be a reduction in the amount of inter-partes costs for the respondents' failure to comply with the Legal Profession Act 2004 (NSW). Furthermore, the court needed to decide whether there were costs to be indemnified, and if a joint and several costs order should be made.

The court concluded that, despite the separate and distinct nature of the transactions, there was a significant commonality of evidence, issues, and facts concerning the impugned transfers of shares and properties. As such, the court found it appropriate to make a joint and several costs order as between the various respondents. The court fixed the costs that the respondents are liable to pay the applicants in the sum of $212,166 for the 2014 proceedings and $442,668 for the 2013 proceedings, which will be payable on a joint and several basis. The respondents' payment of the applicants' costs was stayed until 2 February 2017 or until further order.

The court made the following orders: (1) the respondents pay the applicants' costs fixed in the sum of $212,166, and (2) Order 1 be stayed until 2 February 2017 or until further order. Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.