LexisNexis?
  • world mapWorldwide
  • Contact Us
 

Vero Insurance Ltd v Kassem [2010] NSWSC 1481

by Emma.Gleeson 24. January 2011 09:34

 Facts

The first defendants were the administrators of Ungal Properties and their conduct was called into question in these proceedings.

 

The first defendants prepared and served affidavits dealing with the conduct matters raised by the plaintiff. They did not, however, participate in the proceedings beyond the affidavits, leaving the second defendant to run the proceedings.

 

The second defendants were successful in the proceedings and were awarded costs. The first defendants sought their costs of preparing the affidavits, to which the judgment dealt solely.

 

Outcome

It was held that the administrators had reasonably incurred the costs [12] and that by serving the affidavits they were made available for use by the other parties (although ultimately they were not read in the proceedings). The Court noted that they could recoup their costs from the second defendant (over which the first defendants had become deed administrators), however, that would deplete the deed fund and penalise the second defendant who had been successful in the proceedings: [9].

 

Costs were therefore awarded against the plaintiff in favour of the second defendant.

 

 

Relevant paragraphs of Ford

[11.265], [25.111], [25.125], [25.160], [26.090], [26.200], [26.240], [26.270], [26.300], [26.330], [26.350], [26.371], [26.380], [26.390], [27.126], [27.130], [27.180], [27.183], [27.410], [27.441] [27.865]

 

 

 

Tags:

Ford's Principles of Corporations Law



Disclaimer

LexisNexis, and the authors and endorsers of this blog each exclude liability for loss suffered by any person resulting in any way from the use of, or reliance on, the content of the blog. Views expressed in blog content are the opinion of the individual writer and do not represent the views of LexisNexis.



Bookmark and Share

Widget Twitter not found.

Root element is missing.X