Chapman v Luminis Pty Ltd (No 7) - [2002] FCA 1098

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Chapman v Luminis Pty Ltd (No 7) [2002] FCA 1098
COSTS – non-party costs order sought by successful respondents - applicants people of straw – whether the non-party played an active part in the conduct of the litigation – whether the non-party or some person on whose behalf it was acting or had been appointed had an interest in the subject matter of the litigation – whether interests of justice require that the order be made.
Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 43
Chapman v Luminis Pty Ltd & Ors (No 5) [2001] FCA 1106 cited
Knight v F. P. Special Assets Ltd (1992) 174 CLR 178 applied
Caboolture Park Shopping Centre Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) v White Industries (Qld) Pty Ltd (1993) 45 FCR 224 cited
McKewins Hairdressing and Beauty Supplies Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (2000) 171 ALR 335 cited
Chapman v Luminis (1998) 86 FCR 513 cited
Symphony Group Plc v Hodgson [1994] QB 179 distinguished
Vestris v Cashman (1998) 72 SASR 449 distinguished
Yates v Boland [2000] FCA 1895 followed
Gore v Justice Corporation [2002] FCAFC 83 followed
Ulowski v Miller (1968) SASR 277 followed
THOMAS LINCOLN CHAPMAN, WENDY JENNIFER CHAPMAN & BINALONG PTY LTD (RECEIVERS & MANAGERS APPOINTED) (IN LIQUIDATION) v LUMINIS PTY LTD, DEANE JOANNE FERGIE, CHERYL ANNE SAUNDERS, ROBERT EDWARD TICKNER & COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
No SG 33 of 1997
von DOUSSA J
ADELAIDE
10 SEPTEMBER 2002

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

SG 33 OF 1997

BETWEEN:

THOMAS LINCOLN CHAPMAN
FIRST APPLICANT

WENDY JENNIFER CHAPMAN
SECOND APPLICANT

BINALONG PTY LTD (RECEIVERS & MANAGERS APPOINTED (IN LIQUIDATION)
THIRD APPLICANT

AND:

LUMINIS PTY LTD
FIRST RESPONDENT

DEANE JOANNE FERGIE
SECOND RESPONDENT

CHERYL ANNE SAUNDERS
THIRD RESPONDENT

ROBERT EDWARD TICKNER
FOURTH RESPONDENT

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
FIFTH RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

von DOUSSA J

DATE OF ORDER:

10 SEPTEMBER 2002

WHERE MADE:

ADELAIDE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.Kebaro pay the first and second respondents their costs of these proceedings on the footing that if the applicants, or any of them, or any other party are or is ordered to pay such costs, the liability of all persons ordered to pay such costs should be joint and several.
2.Kebaro pay the third, fourth and fifth respondents their costs of these proceedings on the footing that if the applicants, or any of them, or any other party are or is ordered to pay such costs the liability of all persons ordered to pay such costs should be joint and several.
3.Further consideration of the amended notice of motion by the first and second respondents dated 16 August 2002 and the amended notice of motion filed by the third, fourth and fifth respondents dated 24 June 2002 be otherwise adjourned for further consideration on a date to be fixed.

Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

SG…

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 Chapman v Luminis Pty Ltd (No 7) 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: [2002] FCA 1098
Decision Date: 10 SEPTEMBER 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, Chapman v Luminis Pty Ltd (No 7) was a case involving the parties Kebaro, Luminis Pty Ltd, and several other respondents. The primary dispute concerned the allocation of costs associated with the proceedings, with Kebaro being ordered to pay the costs incurred by the respondents under specific conditions. The case hinged on the interpretation and application of legal principles governing the allocation of costs in complex litigation involving multiple respondents.

The legal issues before the court were primarily centered on the fairness and appropriateness of the cost orders in light of the circumstances of the case. The court had to determine whether the proposed cost orders were just and whether the conditions for joint and several liability were appropriate. The respondents argued that the cost orders were necessary to ensure they were not unduly burdened by the litigation costs, while Kebaro contested the terms of the orders.

The court, after considering the submissions from both parties, ruled that the cost orders were fair and necessary given the nature of the proceedings. The court found that the conditions for joint and several liability were appropriate, ensuring that no single party would bear an unfair share of the costs. The reasoning was based on the principle that the cost orders should reflect the actual costs incurred and the parties' respective contributions to the proceedings.

The final orders of the court mandated that Kebaro pay the first and second respondents their costs on the specified joint and several liability terms. Additionally, Kebaro was ordered to pay the third, fourth, and fifth respondents their costs under the same terms. The consideration of the amended notices of motion by the respondents was adjourned to a future date. This decision underscores the court's role in ensuring that cost orders in litigation are equitable and reflective of the actual circumstances of the case.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Kebaro pay the first and second respondents their costs of these proceedings on the footing that if the applicants, or any of them, or any other party are or is ordered to pay such costs, the liability of all persons ordered to pay such costs should be joint and several.

2. Kebaro pay the third, fourth and fifth respondents their costs of these proceedings on the footing that if the applicants, or any of them, or any other party are or is ordered to pay such costs the liability of all persons ordered to pay such costs should be joint and several.

3. Further consideration of the amended notice of motion by the first and second respondents dated 16 August 2002 and the amended notice of motion filed by the third, fourth and fifth respondents dated 24 June 2002 be otherwise adjourned for further consideration on a date to be fixed.

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
SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	SG 33 OF 1997

BETWEEN:	THOMAS LINCOLN CHAPMAN FIRST APPLICANT WENDY JENNIFER CHAPMAN SECOND APPLICANT BINALONG PTY LTD (RECEIVERS & MANAGERS APPOINTED (IN LIQUIDATION) THIRD APPLICANT
AND:	LUMINIS PTY LTD FIRST RESPONDENT DEANE JOANNE FERGIE SECOND RESPONDENT CHERYL ANNE SAUNDERS THIRD RESPONDENT ROBERT EDWARD TICKNER FOURTH RESPONDENT COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA FIFTH RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	von DOUSSA J
DATE OF ORDER:	10 SEPTEMBER 2002
WHERE MADE:	ADELAIDE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	SG…