Chand v Azurra Pty Ltd (in liq) [2011] NSWCA 58

Court of Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Chand v Azurra Pty Ltd (in liq) [2011] NSWCA 58 Hearing dates: 11 March 2011 Decision date: 11 March 2011 Before: Campbell JA at [24] [37] Macfarlan JA at [33] Young JA at [1]. Decision: Appeal dismissed with costs. [Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.] Catchwords: COSTS- successful application for leave to continue litigation against company in liquidation- Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) s 500(2)- costs of liquidator to be paid by applicant- whether trial judge erred- whether should have been costs in the cause- administrative decisions in equity- requesting a privilege or dispensation- liquidators entitled to reasonable costs- costs order was within judge's discretion. Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005, s 98 Consumer Trader and Tenancy Act 2001, ss 51, 67 Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) ss 471B, 500(2) Uniform Civil Procedure Rules, r 42.1 Cases Cited: House v R [1936] HCA 40; 55 CLR 499 Re Sydney Formworks Pty Ltd (in liq) [1965] NSWLR 646 Swaby v Lift Capital Partners Pty Ltd (in liq) [2009] FCA 749; 72 ACSR 627 Tyrrell v Tyrrells Building Consultancy Pty Ltd [2008] NSWSC 416; 66 ACSR 134 Category: Costs Parties: Ajay Chand (First Appellant) Sashi Chand (Second Appellant) Representation: Counsel: J M Patel (Appellants) D M Farrar (S) (Respondent) Solicitors: Appellants self represented Farrar Lawyers (Respondent) File Number(s): CA 2009/298396 Decision under appeal Citation: In the matter of Azurra Pty Ltd trading as Lifestyle Homes Pty Ltd (in liq) [2009] NSWSC 657 Date of Decision: 2009-06-22 00:00:00 Before: Austin J File Number(s): SC 2245/09