FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Beling v Sixty International S.A. (No 2) [2015] FCA 355
Citation: Beling v Sixty International S.A. (No 2) [2015] FCA 355 Parties: JOEL BELING v SIXTY INTERNATIONAL S.A. File number: VID 626 of 2014 Judge: MORTIMER J Date of judgment: 17 April 2015 Catchwords: COSTS – applicant’s Calderbank offer unreasonably rejected by respondent – where offeror seeking indemnity costs is a solicitor litigant – indemnity costs not available to solicitor litigant in the absence of any contractual liability to pay professional costs – lump sum costs awarded having regard to scale of costs Legislation: Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) ss 37M, 43 Federal Court Rules2011 (Cth) r 40.30, Sch 3 Federal Court Rules 1979 (Cth) O 62 r 19 Cases cited: Auspine Ltd v Australian Newsprint Mills Ltd (1999) 93 FCR 1; [1999] FCA 673 Beach Petroleum NL v Johnson (No 2) (1995) 57 FCR 119 Beling v Sixty International S.A. [2015] FCA 250 Black v Lipovac (1998) 217 ALR 386; [1998] FCA 699 Buckland v Watts [1970] 1 QB 27 Cachia v Hanes (1999) 179 CLR 403 Calderbank v Calderbank [1975] 3 All ER 333 Charlick Trading Pty Ltd v Australian National Railways Commission [2001] FCA 629 Donohoe v Britz (No 2) (1904) 1 CLR 662 Hazeldene’s Chicken Farm Pty Ltd v Victorian Workcover Authority (No 2) (2005) 13 VR 435; [2005] VSCA 298 Kiefel v State ofVictoria [2014] FCA 411 Leary v Leary [1987] 1 All ER 261 London Scottish Benefit Society v Chorley (1884) 13 QBD 872 MGICA (1992) Pty Ltd v Kenny & Good Pty Ltd (No 2) (1996) 70 FCR 236 Shaw v Yarranova [2011] VSCA 55 Stanley v Phillips (1966) 115 CLR 470 Stobbart v Mocnaj [1999] WASC 252 Date of hearing: Heard on the papers Date of last submissions: 9 April 2015 Place: Melbourne Division: GENERAL DIVISION Category: Catchwords Number of paragraphs: 67 Counsel for the Applicant: The Applicant appeared in person Counsel for the Respondent: Dr L Duncan Solicitor for the Respondent: M+K Lawyers
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
VID 626 of 2014
BETWEEN: JOEL BELING
ApplicantAND: SIXTY INTERNATIONAL S.A.
Respondent
JUDGE:
MORTIMER J
DATE OF ORDER:
17 APRIL 2015
WHERE MADE:
MELBOURNE
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The costs ordered to be paid by the respondent to the applicant, pursuant to the decision of this Court dated 20 March 2015, be a lump sum in the amount of $11,537.
2.The costs referred to in paragraph 1 are to be paid to the applicant on or before 15 May 2015.
Note:Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
VID 626 of 2014
BETWEEN: JOEL BELING
ApplicantAND: SIXTY INTERNATIONAL S.A.
Respondent
JUDGE:
MORTIMER J
DATE:
17 APRIL 2015
PLACE:
MELBOURNE
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
On 20 March 2015 the Court made orders setting aside the decision of…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Beling v Sixty International S.A. (No 2) 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2015] FCA 355
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the applicant, being a solicitor litigant, was entitled to indemnity costs in the absence of any contractual obligation to cover professional costs. The court had to determine the appropriate amount of costs to be awarded, considering the scale of the proceedings and the unreasonable rejection of the Calderbank offer. The court acknowledged that indemnity costs were not generally available to solicitor litigants unless there was a contractual basis for such costs.
The court concluded that while the respondent’s rejection of the Calderbank offer was unreasonable, indemnity costs were not available to Beling, the solicitor litigant, in the absence of a contractual provision for professional costs. Instead, the court awarded a lump sum of $11,537 as the appropriate costs for the proceedings. This amount was determined by taking into account the overall scale of the litigation. The court emphasised that the costs awarded were not indemnity costs but rather a reasonable reflection of the costs incurred.
The final orders mandated that the respondent pay the awarded lump sum of $11,537 to the applicant by 15 May 2015. This ruling adhered to Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011, which governs the entry of orders in such cases.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The costs ordered to be paid by the respondent to the applicant, pursuant to the decision of this Court dated 20 March 2015, be a lump sum in the amount of $11,537.
2. The costs referred to in paragraph 1 are to be paid to the applicant on or before 15 May 2015.
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.