Batten v Container Terminal Management Services Limited - [2001] FCA 1539

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Batten v Container Terminal Management Services Limited [2001] FCA 1539
ROBERT GEORGE BATTEN v CONTAINER TERMINAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES LIMITED, FYNWEST PTY LTD, MICHAEL WELLS, PETER KILFOYLE, PATRICK STEVEDORES NO 1 PTY LTD, PATRICK STEVEDORES NO 2 PTY LTD, PATRICK STEVEDORES NO 3 PTY LTD, NATIONAL STEVEDORING TASMANIA PTY LTD, PATRICK STEVEDORES OPERATIONS NO 2 PTY LTD, LANG CORPORATION LIMITED, STRANG PATRICK HOLDINGS PTY LTD, NATIONAL STEVEDORING HOLDINGS PTY LTD, PLZEN PTY LTD, INTRAVEST PTY LTD, CUMBERLANE HOLDINGS PTY LTD, EQUITIUS PTY LTD, JAMISON EQUITY LIMITED, SERENADE PTY LTD, SCARABUS PTY LTD, PATRICK STEVEDORES HOLDINGS PTY LTD, PATRICK STEVEDORES OPERATIONS PTY LTD, CHRISTOPHER D’ARCY CORRIGAN, WILLIAM CLAYTON, ROBERT DUNN
QG 177 of 1998
AND
ANTHONY WAYNE GRAHAME v LANG CORPORATION LIMITED, CHRISTOPHER D’ARCY CORRIGAN, PCS OPERATIONS PTY LTD, PCS RESOURCES PTY LTD, P AND C STEVEDORES PTY LTD, DONALD GORDON McGAUCHIE, PAUL XAVIER HOULIHAN and JAMES WILLIAM FERGUSON
Q132 of 2000
KIEFEL J
26 OCTOBER 2001
BRISBANE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY

QG177 OF 1998

BETWEEN:

ROBERT GEORGE BATTEN
APPLICANT

AND:

CONTAINER TERMINAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES LIMITED
FIRST RESPONDENT

FYNWEST PTY LTD
ACN 080 502 343
SECOND RESPONDENT

MICHAEL WELLS
THIRD RESPONDENT

PETER KILFOYLE
FOURTH RESPONDENT

PATRICK STEVEDORES NO 1 PTY LTD
ACN 003 621 645 (Under Administration)
SIXTH RESPONDENT

PATRICK STEVEDORES NO 2 PTY LTD
ACN 003 893 141 (Under Administration)
SEVENTH RESPONDENT

PATRICK STEVEDORES NO 3 PTY LTD
ACN 010 815 362 (Under Administration)
EIGHTH RESPONDENT

NATIONAL STEVEDORING TASMANIA PTY LTD
ACN 009 477 150 (Under Administration)
NINTH RESPONDENT

PATRICK STEVEDORES OPERATIONS NO 2 PTY LTD
ACN 156 292 687
TENTH RESPONDENT

LANG CORPORATION LIMITED
ACN 008 660 124
ELEVENTH RESPONDENT

STRANG PATRICK HOLDINGS PTY LTD
ACN 003 893 847
TWELFTH RESPONDENT

NATIONAL STEVEDORING HOLDINGS PTY LTD
ACN 060 623 529
THIRTEENTH RESPONDENT

PLZEN PTY LTD
ACN 065 905 571
FOURTEENTH RESPONDENT

INTRAVEST PTY LTD
ACN 001 726 496
FIFTEENTH RESPONDENT

CUMBERLANE HOLDINGS PTY LTD
ACN 000 079 078
SIXTEENTH RESPONDENT

EQUITIUS PTY LTD
ACN 065 981 526
SEVENTEENTH RESPONDENT

JAMISON EQUITY LIMITED
ACN 008 648 655
EIGHTEENTH RESPONDENT

SERENADE PTY LTD
ACN 008 644 655
NINETEENTH RESPONDENT

SCARABUS PTY LTD
ACN 008 645 387
TWENTIETH RESPONDENT

PATRICK STEVEDORES HOLDINGS PTY LTD
ACN 060 462 919
TWENTY-FIRST RESPONDENT

PATRICK STEVEDORES OPERATIONS PTY LTD
ACN 065 375 840
TWENTY-SECOND RESPONDENT

CHRISTOPHER D’ARCY CORRIGAN
TWENTY-THIRD RESPONDENT

WILLIAM CLAYTON
TWENTY-FOURTH RESPONDENT

ROBERT DUNN
TWENTY-FIFTH RESPONDENT

AND:

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY

Q132 OF 2000

BETWEEN:

ANTHONY WAYNE GRAHAME
APPLICANT

AND:

LANG CORPORATION LIMITED
(ACN 008 660 124)
FIRST RESPONDENT

CHRISTOPHER D’ARCY CORRIGAN
SECOND RESPONDENT

PCS OPERATIONS PTY LTD
(ACN 081 231 049)
THIRD RESPONDENT

PCS RESOURCES PTY LTD
(ACN 081 231 021)
FOURTH RESPONDENT

P AND C STEVEDORES PTY LTD
(ACN 081 225 078)
FIFTH RESPONDENT

DONALD GORDON McGAUCHIE
SIXTH RESPONDENT

PAUL XAVIER HOULIHAN
SEVENTH RESPONDENT

JAMES WILLIAM FERGUSON
EIGHTH RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

KIEFEL J

DATE:

26 OCTOBER 2001

PLACE:

BRISBANE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Ex Tempore (Costs)
THE BATTEN PROCEEDINGS

I will…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Batten v Container Terminal Management Services Limited and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2001] FCA 1539
Decision Date: 26 OCTOBER 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Batten v Container Terminal Management Services Limited, the applicant, Robert George Batten, sought leave to amend his pleadings in proceedings against multiple respondents, including Container Terminal Management Services Limited and various related entities. The dispute centred around claims of accessorial liability and reliance loss, and the necessity for further clarification of the claims. The Federal Court of Australia, presided over by Justice Kiefel, was tasked with determining the appropriate costs associated with the applications for leave to amend.

The legal issues before the court included whether the applicants should bear a portion of the respondents' costs for the application for leave to amend and the costs incurred due to the amendment. The court also had to consider whether the respondents' complaints about the pleadings were substantiated and whether they warranted an award of costs. Furthermore, the court needed to address whether the respondents' costs should be taxed and paid forthwith.

Justice Kiefel ruled that the applicants should pay half of the respondents' costs related to the application for leave to amend and the costs incurred due to the amendment. The court found that many of the respondents' complaints were unfounded or did not significantly prejudice them. Consequently, the court declined to award the full costs claimed by the respondents. Additionally, the court decided against ordering that the costs be taxed and paid immediately, given the proximity of the scheduled trial and the parties' likely focus on trial preparation.

This decision underscores the importance of clear and precise pleadings in litigation and the court's cautious approach to awarding costs for amendments that are only partially necessary. The court's reasoning highlights the balance between ensuring procedural fairness and avoiding undue financial burden on the parties involved.

Orders