Naidenov (as liquidator) v Anderson, in the matter of Peach & Co Pty Ltd (in liq) (No 2) [2024] FCA 1306

Federal Court of Australia

Naidenov (as liquidator) v Anderson, in the matter of Peach & Co Pty Ltd (in liq) (No 2) [2024] FCA 1306 File number(s): NSD 389 of 2024

Judgment of: GOODMAN J

Date of judgment: 13 November 2024

Catchwords: COSTS – whether a forthwith costs order should be made on the basis of the financial position of the party entitled to costs, the conduct of the plaintiffs in pursuing an interlocutory application for an order under s 1323(1) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), or because of the application having been dismissed at an early stage of the proceeding – order not made COSTS – whether a lump-sum costs order should be made – where the general position is that such an order is inappropriate for interlocutory costs orders and where the evidence relied upon is inadequate – order not made

Legislation: Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), s 1323 Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), s 43 Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), rr 1.34, 1.35, 40.13

Cases cited: Axent Holdings Pty Ltd v Compusign Australia Pty Ltd (No 3) [2018] FCA 6 Coshott v Prentice (No 2) [2018] FCAFC 221 Fiduciary Ltd v Morningstar Research Pty Ltd [2002] NSWSC 432; (2002) 55 NSWLR 1 Hamilton v Meta Platforms Inc [2023] FCA 1496 Naidenov (as liquidator) v Anderson, in the matter of Peach & Co Pty Ltd (in liq) [2024] FCA 1232 Northern Territory v Sangare [2019] HCA 25; (2019) 265 CLR 164 Paciocco v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd (No 2) [2017] FCAFC 146; (2017) 253 FCR 403 PlayUp Limited v Mintas (No 2) [2023] FCA 52 Richmond v Ora Gold Ltd [2020] FCA 70 Rigby v Rigby [2016] NSWSC 241 Stone v Melrose Cranes and Rigging Pty Ltd [2016] FCA 1113 Watson v Kriticos [2022] FCA 4