Arawak Holdings Pty Ltd v King Tide Company Pty Ltd

[2018] QCA 148

Queensland Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Costs
3. › Non-party costs orders
4. › Director of company
5. › Whether non-party costs order should be made against sole director for costs of appeal
6. › Where director had direct personal interest in outcome due to existing non-party costs order from trial
7. › Where corporation impecunious
8. › Knight v FP Special Assets Ltd (1992) 174 CLR 178
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Costs
3. › Non-party costs orders
4. › Director of company
5. › Whether mere fact of being director and shareholder sufficient
6. › Distinction between acting in capacity as director and having personal interest in outcome
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Security for costs
3. › Release of security
4. › Whether security can be released before costs assessed
5. › Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), rr 687(1), 737(1), Ch 17A Pt 3
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Costs
3. › Indemnity costs
4. › Whether indemnity costs appropriate for application for non-party costs order
5. › Colgate-Palmolive Company v Cussons Pty Ltd (1993) 46 FCR 225

Quick Take

Where a non-party costs order has been made against a director at trial, that director has a direct and vital personal interest in the outcome of any appeal, which is sufficient (together with the corporation's impecuniosity and the director's control) to support a further non-party costs order for the appeal costs. The engagement of different lawyers for the appeal does not alter this. Security for costs paid into court cannot be released before costs are assessed under the UCPR assessment process.