Virgtel Ltd & Anor v. Zabusky & Ors (No 2)

The case of Virgtel Ltd & Anor v. Zabusky & Ors (No 2) involved the respondents applying for a stay of enforcement of four costs orders made in relation to interlocutory applications in the proceeding, and seeking variations to Mareva orders that had been imposed on their assets. The primary dispute was whether the enforcement of the costs orders should be halted and whether the Mareva orders should be varied to allow further payment of legal expenses. The case was heard in an Australian court.

The legal issues before the court were twofold. Firstly, whether the enforcement of the costs orders should be stayed given the potential for these orders to stifle the proceedings. Secondly, whether the Mareva orders should be varied to enable further payment of legal expenses. The respondents argued that the costs orders could potentially stifle the proceedings, and that the Mareva orders should be varied to allow for an increase in the limit permitted under the mortgage over the Riverwalk unit properties to the respondents’ solicitors to $700,000.

The court dismissed the application for a stay of the costs orders with costs. It reasoned that the potential for the costs orders to stifle the proceedings was speculative and premature, given that the merits of the proceeding had not yet been determined. Regarding the Mareva orders, the court proposed to hear the parties on the appropriate orders to enable an increase in the limit permitted under the mortgage over the Riverwalk unit properties to the respondents’ solicitors to $700,000. The costs of this application were reserved.

The court's final orders were that the application for a stay of the costs orders was dismissed with costs, and that the court would hear the parties regarding the appropriate orders to enable an increase in the limit permitted under the mortgage over the Riverwalk unit properties to the respondents’ solicitors to $700,000, with the costs of this application reserved.