Baker & Ors v Ambridge Investments Pty Ltd (in liq) & Ors (No 2) [2011] VSCA 400 (1 December 2011)

Last Updated: 1 December 2011

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCI 2010 0034

THEODORE BAKER and CAREERPATH AUSTRALIA PTY LTD (ACN 084 086 064) and IMF PTY LTD (ACN 075 604 027) and BREAK FAST INVESTMENTS PTY LTD (ACN 090 648 990) and OXLEY GROUP FINANCE PTY LTD (ACN 107 651 507)	First Appellant Second Appellant Third Appellant Fourth Appellant Fifth Appellant
v
AMBRIDGE INVESTMENTS PTY LTD (Receivers Appointed) (In Liquidation) (ACN 077 299 051) and CHRISTOS VOUKIDIS and C & O VOUKIDIS PTY LTD (ACN 064 693 0554) and MARK ANDREW CYRIL STANLEY (NO 2)	First Respondent Second Respondent Third Respondent Fourth Respondent

---

JUDGES:	BUCHANAN and TATE JJA and ROBSON AJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATES OF HEARING:	19, 20 July and 4 November 2011
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	1 December 2011
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2011] VSCA 400
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	[2010] VSC 59 (Vickery J)

---

COSTS – Application for indemnity costs by successful defendant to appeal – No special circumstances that would justify a departure from the usual order as to costs – Application refused – Costs to be taxed on a party and party basis.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Appellants	Mr R A Brett QC with Mr J L Evans	Mason Sier Turnbull
For the First Respondent	Mr P W Collinson SC with Mr C G Juebner	Foster Nicholson Jones
No appearance for the Second, Third and Fourth Respondents

BUCHANAN JA

TATE JA

ROBSON AJA

1 The appellants appealed against various declarations made by the trial judge. The appeal was dismissed. The first respondent seeks its costs on an indemnity basis, or alternatively on a solicitor and client basis.

2 We have received written submissions from both the first respondent and the appellants on the issue.

3 The first respondent contends that the appeal was brought in disregard of known facts (namely the existence of the unincorporated joint venture) and, properly advised, the appellants should have known that they had no chance of success in the appeal. In our view, the submissions of the first respondent merely emphasises the points that rendered the first respondent successfully able to resist the appeal.

4 In our opinion, the submissions do not point to any special circumstances that would justify a departure from the usual order as to costs.

5 The order of the court shall be that the appellants pay the respondents costs of the appeal and that such costs be taxed on a party and party basis.

- - -