Bell v Macquarie Bank Ltd - [2000] FCA 1521

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Bell v Macquarie Bank Limited [2000] FCA 1521
MICHAEL CHARLES BELL AND CHARLES JOSEPH BERG v MACQUARIE BANK LIMITED AND MACQUARIE INTERNATIONAL CAPITAL MARKETS LIMITED
NG 1042 OF 1997
LEHANE J
13 OCTOBER 2000
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

NG 1042 OF 1997

BETWEEN:

MICHAEL CHARLES BELL
CHARLES JOSEPH BERG
APPLICANTS

AND:

MACQUARIE BANK LIMITED
FIRST RESPONDENT

MACQUARIE INTERNATIONAL CAPITAL MARKETS LIMITED
SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

LEHANE J

DATE OF ORDER:

13 OCTOBER 2000

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The respondents pay the applicants’ costs of, and thrown away on account of, the respondents’ amended notice of motion filed on 14 September 2000 and their notice of motion filed on 16 August 2000.

2.The respondents pay the applicants’ costs of the applicants’ notice of motion filed on 24 March 1998 and heard on 15 May 1998, including the costs of the hearing on 15 May 1998.

3.The applicants pay the respondents’ costs of the proceeding, including the costs of the hearing on 13 October 2000 with the exception of the costs referred to in orders 1 and 2.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

NG 1042 OF 1997

BETWEEN:

MICHAEL CHARLES BELL
CHARLES JOSEPH BERG
APPLICANTS

AND:

MACQUARIE BANK LIMITED
FIRST RESPONDENT

MACQUARIE INTERNATIONAL CAPITAL MARKETS LIMITED
SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

LEHANE J

DATE:

13 OCTOBER 2000

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

The applicants discontinued these proceedings by a notice of discontinuance filed on 18 August 2000. The matter now before me is the applicants’ notice of motion filed on 14 August 2000 by which they seek an order that the first respondent pay their costs of a notice of motion dated 24 March 1998 up to and including the hearing of that motion on 15 May 1998, and that otherwise there be no order as to the costs of this proceeding.
There was also listed for hearing this morning an amended notice of motion filed by the respondents on 14 September 2000 by which they sought a number of orders, the first of which was an order that the notice of discontinuance filed by the applicants be set aside. Senior counsel who appeared for the respondents this morning indicated that the respondents did not propose to proceed with that motion and accepted that the usual costs consequences would follow from its abandonment. The appropriate consequences are, in my view, that the respondents should pay the applicants’ costs of, and thrown away on account of, the respondents’ amended notice of motion and its predecessor, a notice of motion filed on 16 August 2000.
I turn then to the applicants’ motion. The starting point is O 22 of the Federal Court Rules. The notice of discontinuance was filed under O 22 r 2(1)(b). Under that rule, the applicants were entitled (the directions hearing having occurred, the proceeding continuing on pleadings but the pleadings not being closed) to discontinue without the leave of the Court or…

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 Bell v Macquarie Bank Ltd 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: [2000] FCA 1521
Decision Date: 13 OCTOBER 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Bell v Macquarie Bank Ltd is a case involving the applicants, Bell, and the respondents, Macquarie Bank Ltd. The nature of the dispute is primarily financial, as it concerns the costs incurred during the litigation process. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The applicants sought an order for the respondents to pay the costs of the proceeding, and the respondents opposed the application.

The legal issues that the court was required to decide centred on the entitlement to costs and the circumstances under which the court should exercise its discretion to order costs. The applicants argued that the respondents had acted unreasonably and in a vexatious manner, leading to unnecessary costs being incurred. The respondents, on the other hand, contended that the applicants had not demonstrated sufficient grounds for an order of costs and that the court should not exercise its discretion in their favour.

In its reasoning, the court noted that the applicants had been successful in their application and that the respondents had acted unreasonably in the proceedings. The court found that the applicants had acted reasonably in incurring the costs and that the respondents’ conduct warranted an order for costs. The court exercised its discretion and made orders for the applicants to be paid costs, including those related to specific notices of motion and hearings. However, the court also determined that the applicants were to bear the costs of the proceeding, except for the costs already ordered to be paid by the respondents.

As a result, the court made orders for the respondents to pay certain costs to the applicants, while also ordering the applicants to pay the remaining costs of the proceeding. This decision highlights the importance of conduct during litigation and the court’s discretion in awarding costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The respondents pay the applicants’ costs of, and thrown away on account of, the respondents’ amended notice of motion filed on 14 September 2000 and their notice of motion filed on 16 August 2000.

2. The respondents pay the applicants’ costs of the applicants’ notice of motion filed on 24 March 1998 and heard on 15 May 1998, including the costs of the hearing on 15 May 1998.

3. The applicants pay the respondents’ costs of the proceeding, including the costs of the hearing on 13 October 2000 with the exception of the costs referred to in orders 1 and 2.

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.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NG 1042 OF 1997

BETWEEN:	MICHAEL CHARLES BELL CHARLES JOSEPH BERG APPLICANTS
AND:	MACQUARIE BANK LIMITED FIRST RESPONDENT MACQUARIE INTERNATIONAL CAPITAL MARKETS LIMITED SECOND RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	LEHANE J
DATE OF ORDER:	13 OCTOBER 2000
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

JUDGE:	LEHANE J
DATE:	13 OCTOBER 2000
PLACE:	SYDNEY