Fortrend Securities Pty Ltd v Wollermann (No 3)

Link copied
Case Copied 21 min read

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Fortrend Securities Pty Ltd v Wollermann (No 3) [2025] FCA 444

File number(s): VID 38 of 2023
Judgment of: O’CALLAGHAN J
Date of judgment: 6 May 2025
Catchwords: COSTS – where respondents were entirely successful following 15-day trial – where respondents previously made two offers to settle the proceeding by which respondents would have paid to applicants substantial sums of money and their costs – where both offers not accepted – whether offers unreasonably refused – held: applicants liable to pay respondents’ costs on a party-party basis up to a date determined under r 25.14(2) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) by reference to the date of the first offer and thereafter on an indemnity basis
Legislation:

Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) ss 182(1) and 183(1)

Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 43

Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) Pt 25, r 25.14(2)

Cases cited:

Anchorage Capital Partners Pty Limited v ACPA Pty Ltd (No 2) [2018] FCAFC 112

Fortrend Securities Pty Ltd v Wollermann (No 2) [2025] FCA 96

Re Wilcox; Ex parte Venture Industries Pty Ltd (No 2) (1996) 72 FCR 151

Division: General Division
Registry: Victoria
National Practice Area: Commercial and Corporations
Sub-area: Commercial Contracts, Banking, Finance and Insurance
Number of paragraphs: 42
Date of last submission/s: 13 March 2025
Date of hearing: Determined on the papers
Solicitor for the Applicants: Cornwalls
Counsel for the Respondents: P Crutchfield KC and L Merrick KC with T Burn-Francis
Solicitor for the Respondents: Seyfarth Shaw

ORDERS

VID 38 of 2023
BETWEEN:

FORTREND SECURITIES PTY LTD ACN 055 702 693

First Applicant

JOSEPH BURKE FORSTER
Second Applicant

FORTREND SECURITIES INC
Third Applicant

AND:

CHRISTOPHER JAMES WOLLERMANN

First Respondent

STEPHEN MATTHEW LYLE
Second Respondent

SHAW AND PARTNERS LIMITED
Third Respondent

LWAM PTY LTD
Fourth Respondent

ALTA VIA PTY LTD
Fifth Respondent

GROLLA PTY LTD
Sixth Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

O’CALLAGHAN J

DATE OF ORDER:

6 MAY 2025

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The applicants pay the respondents’ costs of the proceeding:

(a)before 11am on 3 October 2023 — on a party and party basis; and

(b)thereafter — on an indemnity basis.

2.The costs in order 1 be paid as a lump sum.

3.The calculation of the lump sum be referred to a registrar of this court to fix the amount of the lump sum payable, and:

(a)within 28 days of the date of this order, the respondents file and serve any costs summary and submissions in accordance with the Costs Practice Note (GPN-COSTS);

(b)within 28 days of service of the respondents’ costs summary and submissions, the applicants file and serve any costs response and submissions in accordance with the Costs Practice Note; and

(c)pursuant to r 1.37 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), the registrar determine the quantum of costs in any referred costs dispute in such manner as they think fit (including, if thought appropriate, on the papers) and, within two weeks of the making of the determination, make orders for the payment of the amounts…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Fortrend Securities Pty Ltd v Wollermann (No 3) 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
[2025] FCA 444
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Fortrend Securities Pty Ltd v Wollermann (No 3) concerns the determination of costs following a trial where the respondents were entirely successful. The applicants, Fortrend Securities Pty Ltd and Fortrend Securities Inc, had previously made two offers to settle the proceeding by which they would have paid the respondents substantial sums of money and their costs. Both offers were not accepted by the applicants. The central issue before the court was whether the applicants unreasonably refused these settlement offers, thereby making them liable to pay the respondents' costs. The court had to determine if the applicants' refusal was reasonable or if it amounted to unreasonable refusal, which would lead to the applicants being liable to pay the respondents' costs on a party-party basis up to a specific date and thereafter on an indemnity basis.

The court examined the circumstances surrounding the settlement offers and the applicants' reasons for rejecting them. It considered whether the applicants had a reasonable basis for their refusal and whether there were any mitigating factors that could justify their decision not to accept the settlement offers. The court found that the applicants had not provided sufficient justification for their refusal and that the offers were reasonable under the circumstances. Therefore, the applicants were held liable for the respondents' costs on a party-party basis up to a date determined by reference to the date of the first offer, and thereafter on an indemnity basis.

In conclusion, the court ordered that the applicants pay the respondents' costs of the proceeding before a specified date on a party-party basis and thereafter on an indemnity basis. The calculation of the lump sum for these costs was to be referred to a registrar of the court. The respondents were required to file and serve their costs summary and submissions within 28 days, and the applicants were to respond within 28 days of the service of the respondents' submissions. The registrar was tasked with determining the quantum of costs in any referred dispute and making orders for payment within two weeks of the determination.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The applicants pay the respondents’ costs of the proceeding:

(a) before 11am on 3 October 2023 — on a party and party basis; and

(b) thereafter — on an indemnity basis.

2. The costs in order 1 be paid as a lump sum.

3. The calculation of the lump sum be referred to a registrar of this court to fix the amount of the lump sum payable, and:

(a) within 28 days of the date of this order, the respondents file and serve any costs summary and submissions in accordance with the Costs Practice Note (GPN-COSTS);

(b) within 28 days of service of the respondents’ costs summary and submissions, the applicants file and serve any costs response and submissions in accordance with the Costs Practice Note; and

(c) pursuant to r 1.37 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), the registrar determine the quantum of costs in any referred costs dispute in such manner as they think fit (including, if thought appropriate, on the papers) and, within two weeks of the making of the determination, make orders for the payment of the amounts so determined.

Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth).

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

These reasons deal with the issue of costs following my judgment in Fortrend Securities Pty Ltd v Wollermann (No 2) [2025] FCA 96 (the primary judgment), and they assume familiarity with it. At trial, Fortrend Securities Pty Ltd (FSA) and Fortrend Securities Inc (FSI) (together, Fortrend or the applicants) contended that Shaw and Partners Limited (the third respondent) obtained the benefit of Fortrend’s confidential information and sued Messrs Wollermann and Lyle (the first and second respondents) for breaches of their contractual obligations, their obligations under ss 182(1) and 183(1) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Corporations Act) and their fiduciary duties as employees of Fortrend. The applicants claimed loss and damage, allegedly arising from the use of Fortrend’s confidential information by Shaw, Mr Wollermann, Mr Lyle and LWAM Pty Ltd (the fourth respondent) to benefit themselves, in the sum of $11.4 million. The pleaded case on the claim for damages in that amount was put this way in the further amended statement of claim dated 9 April 2024:126.The FSA Clients would not have transferred from FSA to Shaw but for the use by Wollermann and Lyle of the Confidential Client Information to encourage those clients to leave FSA and move to Shaw.126A.By reason of Shaw inducing Wollermann and Lyle to use the Confidential Client Information in breach of their EA’s (as admitted) Shaw, Wollermann and Lyle have caused FSA to lose the value of its business as at September 2022.126B.It is to be inferred in all the circumstances that Shaw has, by reason of the receipt from Wollermann and Lyle of the Confidential Client information increased the value of its business (Shaw FSA Clients Increased Value).126C. In FY22 FSI earned commission and advisory fees totalling US $2,639,572.126D. In FY23 FSI earned commission and advisory fees totally [sic] US $770,365.126E.In the circumstances it is reasonably to be inferred that the US $1,869,207 decrease in Commission and Advisory fees suffered by FSI in FY23 was earned by Shaw in consequence of its receipt and use of the Confidential Client Information (the “FSI fees” received by Shaw).126F.By further reason of the matters set out in paragraph 57(i) above herein, it is reasonably to be inferred that Shaw will continue to achieve the FSI fees received by Shaw in the sum of approximately US $1.9m per annum in FY24, FY25, FY26, FY27, FY28 and FY29. 126G.In the circumstances set out in paragraph 57(i), and paragraphs 126C- to 126F [sic], the Shaw FSA Clients Increased Value is reasonably to be assessed as being no less than the present-day value of US $1.9 million x 6 = US $11.4 million. The first key question that arose in respect of every pleaded and pressed cause of action was: did Mr Wollermann and Mr Lyle use confidential information of Fortrend in breach of their duties and/or breach of contract? For the reasons I gave in the primary judgment, the answer to that question was “no”, with the consequence that the proceeding was dismissed. The question of damages, including Fortrend’s claim for $11.4 million, never arose.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.