Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 29 SEPTEMBER 2026

Apportioned Loss Does Not Mean Apportioned Costs

Having previously found the defendants liable for contravening s 12DA(1) of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 (Cth), the NSW Supreme Court was tasked with determining apportionment of the plaintiffs’ loss as between the respective defendants

AustraliaLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration

Having previously found the defendants liable for contravening s 12DA(1) of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 (Cth), the NSW Supreme Court was tasked with determining apportionment of the plaintiffs’ loss as between the respective defendants. The Court declined to apportion costs, finding that the defendants should be jointly and severally liable for same.

In issue

  • Whether the plaintiff’s loss should be apportioned between the respective defendants, including a company and its director, and whether the defendants should be jointly and severally liable for the plaintiffs’ costs or whether costs should be apportioned.

The background

The substantive proceedings concerned an investment made by the plaintiffs, Mr Jianping Qiu and his wife, Ms Jingjing Lin, in the Jarrah Capital 2005 Loan Trust (Jarrah Capital Trust).

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

See more popular content from