P also sought to wind the Co up. That failed too, leaving the parties in their existing relationship: [3]

Normally, as we know, costs follow the event – broadly, the “loser” in a piece of litigation pays (some of) the “winner’s” legal costs.

But what was the appropriate cost order in this case, when no one got what they were after?

D pressed for costs. P’s position was each party should pay its own.

D successfully resisted P’s wind up application because of a change in the facts after proceedings were commenced: [16] Without that change, P would have got its wind up.

Further, while D’s cross-claim for a share sale was on a defensive basis [17] that XC failed on its own (lack of) merits, rather than the fact P’s claim that it was defending against failed: [18]

D made a settlement offer but the outcome P enjoyed was no less favourable than what D offered, meaning there was no special costs order: [22], [24]

No order as to costs was made, leaving both P and D to pay their own: [26]