Playing the man and not the ball: When non-party cost orders are available in Court

By Simon Abraham
23 July 2019
All litigants like winning cases. An order for costs never hurts either. However, some litigants don’t properly consider the recoverability of cost orders prior to instituting proceedings.
When can a party not named as a litigant be responsible for the payment of costs (cost orders) in a legal proceeding?
The making of an order for costs against a non-party is an exceptional course for a court to take. The usual order, of course, is that the losing party pays the successful party’s costs of the proceeding. There are, however, recognised sets of circumstances in which express provisions authorise, or the interests of justice require, the making of a non-party order for costs.
Our firm recently dealt with this issue in the case of Royal Fresh International Pty Ltd v Nutracare Life Sciences Pty Ltd (in liq) as Trustee for the Nutracare Life Sciences Unit Trust [2019] VCC 553 (29 April 2019).
The power to make a non-party costs order can arise where:
- a named party is insolvent;
- the non-party played a sufficiently active role in the conduct of the litigation;
- the non-party has a sufficient interest in the litigation;
- the interests of justice require it.
In the Royal Fresh case, a company was shocked to discover that in Australia the law does not bestow personal liability for costs upon directors.
An unsuccessful attempt was made by a litigant to recover costs from the directors personally. The Court reaffirmed that a company has an independent legal personality distinct from that of its shareholders and neither shareholders nor directors, as a general proposition, are personally liable for a company’s acts and defaults.
In some exceptional cases, where the non-party is a real party to the litigation and is also actively involved and personally interested in the proceeding, the Court may have jurisdiction to consider making a cost order against the non-party.
Courts will not underwrite bad commercial decisions. A litigant that sues a company with no assets is often setting themselves up for a double disappointment.
If you have any litigation questions, please do not hesitate to contact Simon Abraham, Phoebe Langridge or a member of our firm’s litigation team.
Disclaimer
The material contained in this publication is meant to be informational only and is not to be construed as legal advice. Tisher Liner FC Law will not be held liable or responsible for any claim, which is made as a result of any person relying upon the information contained in this publication.
Related Articles
View AllRecording | TLFC Law Lunchtime Briefing | Commercial Matrimony – Marry/Battle/Kill

By Simon Abraham
22 June 2022
Your property has been restrained! What do you do when the government freezes your assets?

By Madeleine Brown
17 June 2022
Corporate life after death – Reinstating a company and how to do it

By Madeleine Brown
11 March 2022
It’s the Contract!!! High Court states employment relationships are based on contract, not friendship.

By Amy La Verde
25 February 2022
Interstate Landlords in Victoria – new arrangements in the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria

By Samuel McMahon
17 November 2021
Freeze, don’t move!…How to freeze assets

By Stefan Chelper
5 November 2021
Deliveroo decision creates chaos in the ‘Gig Economy’ as law struggles to keep up

By Bianca Mazzarella
4 June 2021
Winning Civil Cases as a Defendant – TLFC on a winning roll…

By Simon Abraham
9 April 2021
Announcing our Promotions
Transact Now, Regret Later – The Case for Credit Management

By Samuel McMahon
8 October 2019