FINANCIAL INTEGRITY PTY LIMITED v SCOTT FARMER AND BRAVIUM PTY LIMITED (NO 4)
[2014] ACTSC 145 (16 June 2014)
PROCEDURE – Supreme Court procedure – judgments and orders – amendment – “slip rule”
PROCEDURE – Costs – “Calderbank letter” – whether offer of compromise constitutes a “Calderbank letter” – whether special costs order should be made – whether costs of particular issue should be made
Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT), r 6906
Agius v Agius [2010] FamCAFC 143
AMEV Finance Ltd v Artes Studios Thoroughbreds Pty Ltd (1988) 13 NSWLR 486
Ari v Decevic (No 2) [2014] NSWSC 85
Burrell v The Queen (2008) 238 CLR 218
Calderbank v Calderbank [1976] Fam 93
Collex Pty Ltd v Roads and Traffic Authority (NSW) (2007) 154 LGERA 95
Expo Aluminium (NSW) Pty Ltd v Pateman Pty Ltd (No 2) (Unreported, New South Wales Court of Appeal, Kirby P, Samuels and Meagher JJA, 29 April 1999)
Financial Integrity Group Pty Ltd v Farmer (No 2) [2013] ACTSC 166
Financial Integrity Group Pty Ltd v Farmer (No 3) [2014] ACTSC 75
Globaltech Pty Ltd v Pareek [2006] WASC 30 (S)
Perry v Comcare (2006) 150 FCR 319
Quirk v Bawden (1992) 112 ACTR 1
SMEC Testing Services Pty Ltd v Campbelltown City Council [2000] NSWCA 323
The Anderson Group Pty Ltd v Tynan Motors Pty Ltd (No 2) (2006) 67 NSWLR 706
Van Zonneveld v Seaton [2005] NSWSC 175
Westpac Pty Ltd v Allied Westralian Finance Ltd (1994) 123 FLR 1
EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT
No. SC 589 of 2007
Judge: Refshauge J
Supreme Court of the ACT
Date: 16 June 2014
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE )
) No. SC 589 of 2007
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY )
BETWEEN:FINANCIAL INTEGRITYGROUP PTY LIMITED
Plaintiff
AND:SCOTT FARMER
First Defendant
AND:BRAVIUM PTY LIMITED
Second Defendant
ORDER
Judge: Refshauge J
Date: 16 June 2014
Place: Canberra
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
Order 1 of the orders made on 1 May 2014 be amended by omitting “$8,720.00” and substituting “$5,756.36”.
The plaintiff pay the defendants’ costs on a party and party basis up to and including 28 April 2010.
Each party pay their own costs of the submissions made in response to the order made on 13 August 2013.
Otherwise, the defendants pay the plaintiff’s costs on a party and party basis from 29 April 2010 to judgment.
Following the dissolving of an injunction made on 27 August 2007, application was made to me for an order assessing the damages occasioned as a result of the original making of the injunction.
On 1 May 2014, I ordered that there be judgment for the defendants in the sum of $8,720.00 which included damages of $3,700.00 and interest on that sum of $5,020.00: Financial Integrity Group Pty Ltd v Farmer (No 3) [2014] ACTSC 75.
The parties have now approached me with a submission that the interest then calculated is incorrect. The lawyers for the plaintiff prepared a calculation using the Court’s interest calculator, showing the total interest as $2,056.36, that…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Financial Integrity Pty Ltd v Farmer (No 4) 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2014] ACTSC 145
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was required to determine whether the "slip rule" could be applied to amend numerical errors in the original orders, and if so, the extent to which such amendments could be made. The court also needed to consider whether the defendants' offer of compromise constituted a "Calderbank letter" and whether special costs orders should be made in light of this offer. Additionally, the court had to assess the costs of the proceedings, including whether the plaintiff should bear the costs of a particular issue and whether the defendants were entitled to costs on a party and party basis.
In its decision, the court allowed the plaintiff's application to amend the numerical errors in the original orders, applying the "slip rule" to correct the amounts in question. The court found that the defendants' offer of compromise did not meet the criteria of a "Calderbank letter" and, therefore, declined to make any special costs orders in relation to this offer. The court also ruled on the costs of the proceedings, ordering that the plaintiff pay the defendants' costs up to a certain date, while the defendants were to bear the costs from that date to judgment. The court further determined that each party should bear their own costs in relation to specific submissions made during the proceedings.
The final orders of the court included the amendment of the numerical errors in the original orders, the allocation of costs between the parties in accordance with the court's ruling, and the instruction that each party bear their own costs in relation to specific submissions. This comprehensive ruling addressed the key issues of the "slip rule", the assessment of costs, and the implications of a proposed compromise in the context of the ongoing dispute between the parties.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Order 1 of the orders made on 1 May 2014 be amended by omitting “$8,720.00” and substituting “$5,756.36”.
2. The plaintiff pay the defendants’ costs on a party and party basis up to and including 28 April 2010.
3. Each party pay their own costs of the submissions made in response to the order made on 13 August 2013.
4. Otherwise, the defendants pay the plaintiff’s costs on a party and party basis from 29 April 2010 to judgment.
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.