Ranclose Investments Pty Ltd v Leda Management Services Pty Ltd (No.3) [2021] NSWDC 316

District Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Ranclose Investments Pty Ltd v Leda Management Services Pty Ltd (No.3) [2021] NSWDC 316 Hearing dates: On the Papers Date of orders: 14 July 2021 Decision date: 14 July 2021 Jurisdiction: Civil Before: Abadee DCJ Decision: See paragraph 21 Catchwords: COSTS – interlocutory proceedings – presumptive order for costs for substantially successful respondent to the motion – unsuccessful applicant seeks costs to be reserved or alternatively, costs in the cause Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) ss 56, 57, 59 Cases Cited: Ranclose Investments Pty Ltd v Leda Management Services Pty Ltd [2021] NSWDC 210 Ranclose Investments Pty Ltd v Leda Management Services Pty Ltd (No.2) [2021] NSWDC 288 Woodcroft v DPP (Cth) (2000) 174 ALR 60 Texts Cited: G Dal Pont, Law of Costs (4th ed, 2018, LexisNexis, electronic version) Category: Costs Parties: Ranclose Investments Pty Ltd (plaintiff/first cross-defendant) Leda Management Services Pty Ltd (first defendant/cross-claimant) Leda Holdings Pty Ltd (second defendant) Mr Williamson (second cross-defendant) Representation: Solicitors: Clancy Lawyers for the plaintiff/first cross-defendant and second cross-defendant Bartier Perry for the first defendant/cross-claimant and second defendant File Number(s): 2019/142783 Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

Background 1. On 30 June 2021, I determined multiple interlocutory applications brought by the plaintiff under its notice of motion dated 10 June 2021 [1] . Those applications were brought in response to my determination of earlier interlocutory applications made by the parties on 28 May 2021 [2] . 2. The upshot of Ranclose No.1 was that the plaintiff was ordered to provide security for the defendant's costs and was granted leave to file an amended pleading. It failed with its application that the cross-claimant provide security for the cross-defendants' costs. Certain adverse costs orders were made against the plaintiff reflecting these outcomes: Ranclose No.1 at orders (3)(b), (5), (10)-(11) in [146]. The only success that the plaintiff enjoyed in Ranclose No.2 was its application to vary the order for security so as to enable it to provide it in more tranches; although it was also granted an indulgence in having more time to file a pleading in the event that it decided that it wished to do so. All of its other applications to set aside or vary the orders (including those relating to costs) that were made in Ranclose No.1, and/or bring fresh applications, for such orders as limited discovery and the provision of information (or effectively interrogatories) by the defendant, prior to the plaintiff amending its pleading, were decided adversely to the plaintiff in Ranclose No.2. 3. The Court indicated that, in light of the results of the various applications heard in Ranclose No.2, subject to the costs of the application to vary the terms of the order for security, the defendant was otherwise presumptively entitled to its costs of its successful opposition to the applications. 4. The defendant foreshadowed in its written submissions opposing the applications the subject of determination in Ranclose No.2 that it wished to seek a special costs order in the event that it was successful. Accordingly, as part of the orders in Ranclose No.2, the Court granted the defendant opportunity to bring that application; and also made directions for the filing of evidence and submissions by the parties. 5. As it happens, the defendant did not pursue any special costs order. However, the plaintiff has sought to alter the position on costs following Ranclose No.2. It now applies for an order that costs of those applications be reserved, or, alternatively that they be costs in the cause.