Legal Research
Cases
Chapmans Ltd v Australian Stock Exchange Ltd

Chapmans Ltd v Australian Stock Exchange Ltd

Link copied

Case Copied 26 August 1996 2 min read

Contents

On this page

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.

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 Chapmans Ltd v Australian Stock Exchange 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: [1996] FCA 738
Decision Date: 26 Aug 1996

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.

Orders