Frigger v Trenfield (No 13) - [2022] FCA 906

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Frigger v Trenfield (No 13) [2022] FCA 906

File number: WAD 141 of 2019

Judgment of: JACKSON J

Date of judgment: 3 August 2022

Legislation:
Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth)

Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) rr 36.08, 41.03, 41.11

Cases cited:
Endormer Pty Ltd (in liq) v Australian Guarantee Corporation Ltd [2001] FCA 15

Frigger v Trenfield (No 10) [2021] FCA 1500

Frigger v Trenfield (No 11) [2022] FCA 326

Frigger v Trenfield (No 12) [2022] FCA 900

In-N-Out Burgers, Inc v Hashtag Burgers Pty Ltd (No 2) [2020] FCA 772

Division: General Division

Registry: Western Australia

National Practice Area: Commercial and Corporations

Sub-area: General and Personal Insolvency

Number of paragraphs: 13

Date of hearing: 3 August 2022

Counsel for the Applicants: The applicants appeared in person

Counsel for the First Respondent: Mr SD Majteles

Solicitor for the First Respondent: Carles Solicitors

Counsel for the Second Respondent: The second respondent did not appear

ORDERS

WAD 141 of 2019

BETWEEN:
ANGELA CECILIA THERESA FRIGGER

First Applicant

HARTMUT HUBERT JOSEF FRIGGER

Second Applicant

AND:
KELLY-ANNE LAVINA TRENFIELD

First Respondent

H & A FRIGGER PTY LTD IN ITS CAPACITY AS TRUSTEE OF THE FRIGGER SUPER FUND

Second Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

JACKSON J

DATE OF ORDER:

3 AUGUST 2022

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The interlocutory application filed on 1 August 2022 is dismissed.
2.The applicants must pay the first respondent's costs of the application, fixed in the sum of $900.

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

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(edited from the transcript)
JACKSON J:

I have today delivered an assessment of the quantum of the costs the subject of paragraph 1 of the orders made in this proceeding on 4 April 2022, which was to the effect that the applicants must pay the first respondent's costs of the proceeding on a party-party basis: see Frigger v Trenfield (No 11)[2022] FCA 326 and Frigger v Trenfield (No 12) [2022] FCA 900.
The assessment requires the applicants to pay those costs and disbursements in a total amount of $422,310.45. The applicants now move for an order described in an interlocutory application dated 1 August 2022 as an order that the operation of the 'costs judgement' of today be 'suspended pending the resolution of appeals WAD278/2021 and WAD85/2022'. Appeal WAD278/2021 is an appeal from the main judgment in the proceeding, namely, Frigger v Trenfield (No 10) [2021] FCA 1500, and WAD85/2022 is an appeal from the costs judgment of 4 April 2022 just mentioned, Frigger v Trenfield (No 11). I was informed from the bar table, and it was not in contention, that WAD278/2021 has been part heard before a Full Court which has listed the balance of the hearing of the appeal to take place this month, and WAD85/2022 has not been listed for hearing pending the outcome of WAD278/2021.
There was some disputation between the parties today as to the true nature…

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.

Continue reading Frigger v Trenfield (No 13)

Details

AGLC: Frigger v Trenfield (No 13) [2022] FCA 906
Case: [2022] FCA 906
Decision Date: 3 August 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Frigger v Trenfield (No 13) involves an interlocutory application filed by Frigger against Trenfield in the Federal Court. The application was filed on 1 August 2022, seeking certain reliefs under the Corporations Law. The nature of the dispute centres around the interpretation and application of the Corporations Law in the context of the applicants' claims against the respondent.

The court was required to address several legal issues, including whether the application was properly before the court, the merits of the relief sought, and the appropriate costs order under the Federal Court Rules 2011. The primary focus was on determining the validity of the application and whether it warranted any interim relief, given the circumstances and the statutory framework.

In dismissing the interlocutory application, the court found that it was not properly before it. The reasoning hinged on the procedural aspects of the application, where the court determined that the applicants had not satisfied the necessary criteria for the relief sought. Additionally, the court held that the applicants had not demonstrated a sufficient basis for the interim relief requested. Consequently, the court ordered that the applicants must pay the first respondent's costs of the application, fixed at $900. This decision was made in accordance with Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The interlocutory application filed on 1 August 2022 is dismissed.

2. The applicants must pay the first respondent's costs of the application, fixed in the sum of $900.

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

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.

File number:	WAD 141 of 2019
Judgment of:	JACKSON J
Date of judgment:	3 August 2022
Legislation:	Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) rr 36.08, 41.03, 41.11
Cases cited:	Endormer Pty Ltd (in liq) v Australian Guarantee Corporation Ltd [2001] FCA 15 Frigger v Trenfield (No 10) [2021] FCA 1500 Frigger v Trenfield (No 11) [2022] FCA 326 Frigger v Trenfield (No 12) [2022] FCA 900 In-N-Out Burgers, Inc v Hashtag Burgers Pty Ltd (No 2) [2020] FCA 772
Division:	General Division
Registry:	Western Australia
National Practice Area:	Commercial and Corporations
Sub-area:	General and Personal Insolvency
Number of paragraphs:	13
Date of hearing:	3 August 2022
Counsel for the Applicants:	The applicants appeared in person
Counsel for the First Respondent:	Mr SD Majteles
Solicitor for the First Respondent:	Carles Solicitors
Counsel for the Second Respondent:	The second respondent did not appear

ORDER MADE BY:	JACKSON J
DATE OF ORDER:	3 AUGUST 2022