The Court declared an agreement for lease entered into by a receiver was valid, binding and enforceable, and ordered specific performance, after the defendant consented to those orders. On costs, the Court applied the Lai Qin principles and held that the defendant's agreement to the relief sought did not constitute a 'capitulation' warranting a costs order, given the directors had no knowledge of the AFL until shortly before proceedings were commenced and the delay in agreeing was not unreasonable in the circumstances. The claim for indemnity costs based on the defendant's failure to promptly clarify its representation was also rejected, the Court finding the conduct not sufficiently unreasonable given the internal directorial dispute and the limited number of court appearances.
The full text is available to signed-in members.