IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) ) NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY ) No NG549 of 1995 ) GENERAL DIVISION )
ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN:CHAPMANS LIMITED
Appellant
AND:AUSTRALIAN STOCK EXCHANGE LIMITED
Respondent
CORAM: LOCKHART, SHEPPARD and HILL JJ. PLACE: SYDNEY DATED: 26 AUGUST 1996
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT THE COURT: On 21 June 1996 the Court gave judgment in this matter. Orders were made dismissing the appeal and directing the parties to file submissions concerning the appropriate order for costs. Those submissions were received by the Court. We do not find it necessary to have the matter listed for oral argument.
We have considered those written submissions. Although the appeal was dismissed, this does not mean that the appellant had been completely unsuccessful in the appeal or that its application instituting the proceeding in the Court's original jurisdiction was entirely misconceived. In our opinion there should be no order concerning the costs of the appeal or of the proceeding at first instance. Accordingly, the Court orders that there be no order concerning the costs of either party of the appeal or the proceeding at first instance.
I certify that this and the preceding one (1) page are a true copy of the reasons for judgment herein of the Court.
Associate
Dated: 26 August 1996
Counsel and Solicitors D Bennett QC with E Strasser
for Appellant: instructed by Glynn Chaffey
Counsel and Solicitors J Hilton SC with T Castle
for Respondent: instructed by Allen Allen & Hemsley
Date Judgment Delivered: 26 August 1996
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) ) NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY ) No NG549 of 1995 ) GENERAL DIVISION )
ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN:CHAPMANS LIMITED
Appellant
AND:AUSTRALIAN STOCK EXCHANGE LIMITED
Respondent
CORAM: LOCKHART, SHEPPARD AND HILL JJ PLACE: SYDNEY DATED: 26 AUGUST 1996
MINUTE OF ORDERS
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
There be no order concerning the costs of either party of the appeal or the proceeding at first instance.
NOTE: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
Details
AGLC
Chapmans Ltd v Australian Stock Exchange Ltd [1996] FCA 738
Case
[1996] FCA 738
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Chapmans Limited appealed against a decision of the Federal Court of Australia in relation to a dispute with the Australian Stock Exchange Limited. The original matter involved an application by Chapmans Limited for a declaration that it had a right to be listed on the Australian Stock Exchange, and for an injunction to enforce that right. The appeal was dismissed, and the Court was required to determine the appropriate order for costs. The Court considered the submissions made by both parties and decided that no order should be made concerning the costs of the appeal or the proceeding at first instance. This decision was based on the Court's opinion that the appellant had not been completely unsuccessful in the appeal, and that its application in the original proceeding was not entirely misconceived. The Court emphasised that the dismissal of the appeal did not mean that Chapmans Limited had not achieved any of its objectives in the original proceeding.
The legal issues before the Court were primarily concerned with the principles governing the awarding of costs in appeals and the original proceedings in the Federal Court. The Court had to consider whether the appellant's appeal had any merit, and if so, to what extent. Furthermore, the Court had to assess whether Chapmans Limited's original application was entirely misconceived, and whether it had achieved any of its objectives. The Court concluded that, although the appeal was dismissed, Chapmans Limited had not been completely unsuccessful, and therefore, no order for costs should be made. The Court's reasoning was based on the balance of success and failure in both the appeal and the original proceeding.
In reaching its decision, the Court relied on the principles established in previous cases concerning the awarding of costs in appeals and original proceedings. The Court held that the absence of a clear winner in the appeal and the original proceeding warranted a decision that no order should be made concerning the costs. The Court considered it appropriate to avoid the imposition of costs on either party, given the circumstances of the case. The Court's decision was based on the balance of success and failure, and the lack of a clear winner in both the appeal and the original proceeding.
The Court made a final order that there be no order concerning the costs of either party of the appeal or the proceeding at first instance. This decision was consistent with the Court's view that Chapmans Limited had not been completely unsuccessful in the appeal, and that its application in the original proceeding was not entirely misconceived. The Court's order avoided imposing costs on either party and reflected the balance of success and failure in the case.