FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Badenoch Integrated Logging Pty Ltd v Bryant [2025] FCAFC 31
Appeal from: Bryant, in the matter of Gunns Limited (in liq) (receivers and managers appointed) v Badenoch Integrated Logging Pty Ltd [2024] FCA 97 File number(s): VID 189 of 2024
VID 280 of 2024Judgment of: O'CALLAGHAN, MCEVOY AND NESKOVCIN JJ Date of judgment: 21 March 2025 Catchwords: COSTS – where liquidators sought costs order in their favour and company sought orders that the costs of the appeals be costs in the winding up proceeding – order made for company to pay liquidators’ costs of the appeals Legislation: Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) Pt 5.4, s 459R(3)
Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 43
Cases cited: Badenoch Integrated Logging Pty Ltd v Bryant & Anor [2024] FCAFC 167
Commissioner of Taxation v AusNet Transmission Group Pty Ltd (No 2) [2015] FCAFC 124
Oshlack v Richmond River Council (1998) 193 CLR 72; [1998] HCA 11
Queensland North Australia Pty Ltd v Takeovers Panel (No 2) (2015) 236 FCR 370; [2015] FCAFC 128
Ruddock v Vadarlis (No 2) (2001) 115 FCR 229; [2001] FCA 1865
The State of Victoria v Sportsbet Pty Ltd (No 2) [2012] FCAFC 174
Division: General Division Registry: Victoria National Practice Area: Commercial and Corporations Sub-area: Corporations and Corporate Insolvency Number of paragraphs: 9 Date of last submissions: 20 December 2024 Date of hearing Determined on the papers Counsel for the Appellant in VID189/2024 and Respondent in VID280/2024 M Gronow KC and M Black (written submissions) Solicitor for the Appellant in VID189/2024 and Respondent in VID280/2024 Scanlan Carroll Counsel for the Respondents VID189/2024 and Appellants in VID280/2024 B Gibson and M Tennant (written submissions) Solicitor for the Respondents in VID189/2024 and Appellants in VID280/2024 Johnson Winter Slattery ORDERS
VID 189 of 2024 BETWEEN: BADENOCH INTEGRATED LOGGING PTY LTD (ACN 097 956 995)
Appellant
AND: DANIEL MATHEW BRYANT AND CRAIG DAVID CROSBIE IN THEIR CAPACITIES AS JOINT AND SEVERAL LIQUIDATORS OF GUNNS LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) (RECIEVERS AND MANAGERS APPOINTED) (ACN 009 478 148) AND AUSPINE LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) (RECIEVERS AND MANAGERS APPOINTED) (ACN 004 289 730)
Respondents
ORDER MADE BY:
O'CALLAGHAN, MCEVOY AND NESKOVCIN JJ
DATE OF ORDER:
21 MARCH 2025
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The appellant pay the respondents’ costs of and incidental to the appeal, such costs to be taxed in default of agreement.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
ORDERS
VID 280 of 2024 BETWEEN: DANIEL MATHEW BRYANT AND CRAIG DAVID CROSBIE IN THEIR CAPACITIES AS JOINT AND SEVERAL LIQUIDATORS OF GUNNS LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) (RECIEVERS AND MANAGERS APPOINTED) (ACN 009 478 148) AND AUSPINE LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) (RECIEVERS AND MANAGERS APPOINTED) (ACN 004 289 730)
Appellants
AND: BADENOCH INTEGRATED LOGGING PTY LTD (ACN 097 956 995)
Respondent
ORDER MADE BY:
O'CALLAGHAN, MCEVOY AND NESKOVCIN JJ
DATE OF ORDER:
21 MARCH 2025
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The respondent pay the appellants’ costs of and incidental to…
Continue reading Badenoch Integrated Logging Pty Ltd v Bryant
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Badenoch Integrated Logging Pty Ltd v Bryant [2025] FCAFC 31
- Case
- [2025] FCAFC 31
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issue before the court was the allocation of costs between the liquidators and the company. Specifically, the court needed to decide whether the liquidators' costs, which arose from appeals made in the course of their duties, should be treated as part of the general costs of the winding up or whether they should be treated as separate costs for which the company should be liable. The court also had to consider the implications of existing legal principles and precedents concerning the costs associated with liquidators' actions.
The court ruled in favour of the liquidators, determining that the costs incurred during the appeals should be borne by the company. The reasoning of the court was based on the understanding that the liquidators' actions, including the pursuit of appeals, were integral to their role in managing the company's liquidation. The court held that the liquidators' costs were not merely incidental to the winding-up proceedings but were a necessary part of their duties, which justified charging these costs to the company. The court emphasised the importance of ensuring that liquidators could effectively carry out their responsibilities without being unduly hampered by financial constraints.
In its final order, the court mandated that the respondent, being the company, pay the appellants' costs of and incidental to the appeal. The court further specified that these costs were to be taxed in default of agreement, thereby providing a clear directive on the financial obligations of the parties involved.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The respondent pay the appellants’ costs of and incidental to the appeal, such costs to be taxed in default of agreement.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.