The Court ordered the unsuccessful plaintiff to pay the defendants' costs of a dismissed interlocutory injunction application on a standard basis, to be taxed at the conclusion of the proceeding. Indemnity costs were refused because, although the plaintiff's conduct was criticisable, the defendants' own confusing use of 'unpaid dividends' terminology and late disclosure of the novation argument contributed materially to the plaintiff's decision to bring and maintain the application, meaning the plaintiff could not be said to have acted in wilful disregard of known facts or persisted with a hopeless claim. Immediate taxation was refused because pleadings had not yet been filed, the relationship between the interlocutory issues and the substantive oppression proceeding remained unclear, and the defendants themselves had pressed for a pleadings process contributing to anticipated delay.
The full text is available to signed-in members.