2 total
Consent order appointing corporate directors upheld and enforced.
Members of a religious corporation brought motions relating to governance disputes within the corporation.
The court considered applications to intervene, the validity of a consent order appointing corporate directors following a mediation process before another judge, alleged breaches of that order, and related procedural matters.
The respondents argued that the consent order appointing directors should be set aside on grounds including lack of a condition precedent and alleged illegality under the Corporations Act.
The court rejected those arguments, holding that the consent order was valid and final, having been agreed to by all parties through counsel and approved through the agreed process.
Injunctive relief was granted restraining certain respondents from interfering with the corporation’s governance and requiring the turnover of corporate property and documents.
Successful applicant awarded substantial indemnity costs after beating Rule 49 settlement offer.
Following a successful commercial application for the return of a deposit, the applicant sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis relying on a pre‑litigation letter requesting the return of the deposit.
The respondents opposed costs, arguing the case was uncertain, settlement options had been offered, and the application procedure was unusual.
The court held that the applicant was entirely successful and that the June 30, 2014 letter constituted a valid offer to settle within the meaning of Rule 49 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.
Because the judgment obtained was more favourable than the offer, the cost consequences of Rule 49.10 applied.
Substantial indemnity costs were awarded but reduced from the amount claimed to reflect that Rule 49 provides substantial indemnity, not full recovery.
