Chapman v Wickman Ryan Pty Ltd

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Chapman v Wickman Ryan Pty Ltd [2000] FCA 536

COSTS – indemnity costs sought by respondents after judgment was delivered – in the primary proceeding the applicants were wholly unsuccessful – respondents had written to the applicants prior to the hearing suggesting that they discontinue the proceedings and that each party should pay its own costs – whether this was an offer of compromise which might carry costs consequences – whether the applicants’ case in the primary proceedings was a “hopeless” one.

Federal Court Rules O 23 r 11, O 62 r 3
Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 43

J-Corp Pty Ltd v Australian Builders Labourers Federation Union of Workers (No 2) (1993) 46 IR 301 considered
Colgate-Palmolive Company v Cussons Pty Limited (1993) 46 FCR 225 referred to
Fountain Selected Meats (Sales) Pty Ltd v International Produce Merchants Pty Ltd (1988) 81 ALR 397 considered
Multicon Engineering Pty Ltd v Federal Airports Corporation (1996) 138 ALR 425 considered
Hayes & Associates Pty Limited v Kimberly-Clarke Australia Pty Limited (1994) 52 FCR 201 considered
Black v Lipovac (Miles, Heerey and Madgwick JJ, 4 June 1998, unreported) referred to
Coshott v Learoyd [1999] FCA 276 considered

WILLIAM LUDLOW CHAPMAN & JEAN CHAPMAN v WICKMAN RYAN PTY LTD, WESFARMERS DALGETY LTD & AGREVO PTY LIMITED
NG 77 of 1998

MATHEWS J
SYDNEY
28 APRIL 2000

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NG 77 of 1998

BETWEEN:	WILLIAM LUDLOW CHAPMAN & JEAN CHAPMAN Applicants
AND:	WICKMAN RYAN PTY LTD First Respondent/First Cross-Claimant
WESFARMERS DALGETY LTD Second Respondent/Second Cross-Claimant
AGREVO PTY LIMITED Cross-Respondent
JUDGE:	MATHEWS J
DATE OF ORDER:	28 APRIL 2000
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.   The notice of motion is dismissed.

2.   The applicants to this notice of motion are to pay the respondents’ costs of the motion.

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

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NG 77 of 1998

BETWEEN:	WILLIAM LUDLOW CHAPMAN & JEAN CHAPMAN Applicants
AND:	WICKMAN RYAN PTY LTD First Respondent/First Cross-Claimant
WESFARMERS DALGETY LTD Second Respondent/Second Cross-Claimant
AGREVO PTY LIMITED Cross-Respondent

JUDGE:	MATHEWS J
DATE:	28 APRIL 2000
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Background

1. On 29 March 2000, at the end of a lengthy judgment on this matter, I ordered that the application be dismissed and that the applicants pay the costs of the respondents and the cross-respondent.  The respondents now seek an order that part of those costs be paid on an indemnity basis.

2. The matter has a long and complex background, which I shall describe as succinctly as possible. The applicants in the present proceedings (“the Chapmans”) were also represented parties in parallel proceedings (“the representative proceedings”) commenced by David Louis Schneider against Hoechst Schering Agrevo Pty Limited (“Hoechst”). The representative proceedings were brought on behalf of all wheatgrowers in the north-west of New South Wales who claimed losses arising…