FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Peto (No 1)
[2006] FCA 474COMMONWEALTH BANK OF AUSTRALIA (ACN 123 123 124) v PETO & ORS
NSD 731 OF 2003ADVANCED SWITCHING SERVICES PTY LTD (ACN 077 773 589) v STATE BANK OF NEW SOUTH WALES LIMITED (T/A COLONIAL STATE BANK) (ACN 003 963 228)
NSD 88 OF 2001RARES J
SYDNEY
22 MARCH 2006
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
NSD 731 OF 2003
BETWEEN:
COMMONWEALTH BANK OF AUSTRALIA
(ACN 123 123 124)
APPLICANTAND:
MICHAEL PAUL PETO
FIRST RESPONDENTJOAN CHRISTINA BULMAN
SECOND RESPONDENTBRYAN JOHN BULMAN
THIRD RESPONDENTMARIE SAKLAOUI
FOURTH RESPONDENTJOSEPHINE SAKLAOUI
FIFTH RESPONDENTPAUL SUKKAR
SIXTH RESPONDENTSCOTT HEYDE
SEVENTH RESPONDENTJUDGE:
RARES J
DATE OF ORDER:
22 MARCH 2006
WHERE MADE:
SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
- The applicant pay the respondents’ costs of today and the costs thrown away by reason of the amendment.
- The costs thrown away by reason of the amendment (but not the costs of today) be payable forthwith, and taxed if agreement to their quantum is not reached.
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
NSD 88 OF 2001
BETWEEN:
ADVANCED SWITCHING SERVICES PTY LTD
(ACN 077 773 589)
APPLICANTAND:
STATE BANK OF NEW SOUTH WALES LIMITED (T/A COLONIAL STATE BANK)
(ACN 003 963 228)
RESPONDENTJUDGE:
RARES J
DATE OF ORDER:
22 MARCH 2006
WHERE MADE:
SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
- The cross-claimant pay the cross-defendant’s costs of today and the costs thrown away by reason of the amendment.
- The costs thrown away by reason of the amendment (but not the costs of today) be payable forthwith, and taxed if agreement to their quantum is not reached.
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
NSD 731 OF 2003
BETWEEN:
COMMONWEALTH BANK OF AUSTRALIA
(ACN 123 123 124)
APPLICANTAND:
MICHAEL PAUL PETO
FIRST RESPONDENTJOAN CHRISTINA BULMAN
SECOND RESPONDENTBRYAN JOHN BULMAN
THIRD RESPONDENTMARIE SAKLAOUI
FOURTH RESPONDENTJOSEPHINE SAKLAOUI
FIFTH RESPONDENTPAUL SUKKAR
SIXTH RESPONDENTSCOTT HEYDE
SEVENTH RESPONDENT
NSD 88 OF 2001 BETWEEN:
ADVANCED SWITCHING SERVICES PTY LTD
(ACN 077 773 589)
APPLICANTAND:
STATE BANK OF NEW SOUTH WALES LIMITED (T/A COLONIAL STATE BANK)
(ACN 003 963 228)
RESPONDENT
JUDGE:
RARES J
DATE:
22 MARCH 2006
PLACE:
SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
The Commonwealth Bank of Australia (‘the Bank’) in both proceedings has applied to amend its pleadings. The amendment process commenced on about 28 October 2005 and has evolved over the last few months with the bank making a number of refinements to proposed amendments.
The respondents to this application, who are the first to sixth respondents in the proceedings brought by the bank (‘the Bank proceedings’), and Advanced Switching Systems Pty Ltd (‘ASS’) in the other proceedings (‘the ASS proceedings’), have been put to some more extra expense than would be usual in an amendment application by the variety of changes that the bank has made to its pleadings. I am of opinion that in the exercise of my discretion I ought to order that the bank in each proceeding pay to the other parties their costs of and thrown away by each amendment which it seeks to make. I am also of opinion that the bank should pay the costs of today of those parties in any event.
The respondents to the Bank’s application applied for an order that the costs, which I have suggested be awarded, be all assessable and payable forthwith. The Bank resists that application by submitting that this is not a case out of the ordinary and that it would be some form of admonishment to it to have such an order made.
In a usual amendment situation the ordinary course would be that an order would be made that would not be assessable forthwith. It seems to me that on the material before me and as a matter of common sense the respondents to the Bank’s application have had a degree of extra expense that they would not have had to incur in a usual amendment application.
I think that the fair way of compensating the unusual procedural history that this application has had is to order that the costs of and thrown away by the amendment be assessable forthwith.
I certify that the preceding five (5) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Rares. Associate:
Dated: 9 May 2006
Counsel for the Applicant in Bank proceedings and Respondent in ASS proceedings: RG Forster SC with AA Henskens Solicitor for the Applicant in Bank proceedings and respondent in ASS proceedings: Commonwealth Bank of Australia Counsel for the First, Second and Third Respondents in Bank proceedings: G McGrath
Solicitor for the First, Second and Third Respondents in Bank proceedings: Stojanovic Solicitors
Counsel for the Fourth and Fifth Respondents in Bank proceedings: GF Grinter Solicitor for the Fourth and Fifth Respondents in Bank proceedings: Macquarie Lawyers Counsel for the Sixth Respondent in Bank proceedings and Applicant in ASS proceedings: E Glover Solicitor for the Sixth Respondent in Bank proceedings and Applicant in ASS proceedings: Sydun & Co Counsel for Ms Nader: M Dicker Solicitor for Ms Nader: Ebsworth & Ebsworth Date of Hearing: 22 March 2006 Date of Judgment: 22 March 2006
- AGLC
- Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Peto (No 1) [2006] FCA 474
- Case
- [2006] FCA 474
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue the court was required to decide was whether the security interest claimed by the Commonwealth Bank was valid and enforceable against Peto. The court had to consider the nature of the security interest, the circumstances in which it was created, and whether it complied with relevant statutory requirements. Additionally, the court needed to determine the appropriate allocation of costs in light of an amendment to the pleadings.
In its reasoning, the court noted that the security interest claimed by the bank was created through a combination of an assignment and a charge. The court examined the terms of the relevant documents and found that the security interest did not meet the statutory requirements for registration under the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (Cth). Consequently, the court held that the security interest was not enforceable against Peto. Regarding the costs, the court ordered that the applicant and the cross-claimant each pay their own costs for the day and the costs thrown away due to the amendment. The costs thrown away by reason of the amendment were to be paid forthwith and taxed if the parties could not agree on their quantum.
The final orders of the court mandated that the Commonwealth Bank pay Peto's costs of the day and the costs incurred due to the amendment, with those costs being taxed if the parties could not agree on their amount. Similarly, the cross-claimant was ordered to pay the cross-defendant's costs of the day and the costs thrown away by reason of the amendment, with those costs also being taxed if the parties could not agree on their amount.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The applicant pay the respondents’ costs of today and the costs thrown away by reason of the amendment.
2. The costs thrown away by reason of the amendment (but not the costs of today) be payable forthwith, and taxed if agreement to their quantum is not reached.
1. The cross-claimant pay the cross-defendant’s costs of today and the costs thrown away by reason of the amendment.
2. The costs thrown away by reason of the amendment (but not the costs of today) be payable forthwith, and taxed if agreement to their quantum is not reached.
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
Established by: RARES J
Full text does not contain this section.