FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Frugtniet v Australian Securities and Investments Commission (No 2) [2016] FCA 1124
Appeal from: Frugtniet v Australian Securities and Investments Commission [2015] AATA 128 File number: VID 177 of 2015 Judge: BROMBERG J Date of judgment: 15 September 2016 Catchwords: COSTS – whether costs should follow the event Legislation: Federal Proceedings (Costs) Act 1981 (Cth) s 6 Cases cited: Frugtniet v Australian Securities and Investments Commission [2016] FCA 995 Date of hearing: Determined on the papers Registry: Victoria Division: General Division National Practice Area: Administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights Category: Catchwords Number of paragraphs: 5 Counsel for the Applicant: The Applicant appeared in person Counsel for the Respondent: Mr R Knowles Solicitor for the Respondent: Australian Securities and Investments Commission ORDERS
VID 177 of 2015 BETWEEN: RUDY NOEL FRUGTNIET
Applicant
AND: AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES AND INVESTMENTS COMMISSION
Respondent
JUDGE:
BROMBERG J
DATE OF ORDER:
15 SEPTEMBER 2016
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The applicant pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the appeal.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
BROMBERG J:
On 22 August 2016, the Court ordered that the Amended Notice of Appeal of the applicant (Mr Frugtniet) be dismissed. In the reasons for judgment also published on that day (Frugtniet v Australian Securities and Investments Commission [2016] FCA 995), orders were made providing Mr Frugtniet with an opportunity to file and serve any submission as to the costs of the proceeding, failing which an order would take effect requiring Mr Frugtniet to pay the respondent’s costs.
Mr Frugtniet did file a submission as to the question of costs. Mr Frugtniet accepted that the respondent (ASIC), having succeeded in the proceeding, was entitled to an order for its costs.
As costs ordinarily follow the event and as there is no contest that Mr Frugtniet should pay the costs of ASIC, I will make an order to that effect.
I note that in the submission made by Mr Frugtniet, Mr Frugtniet included a request directed to ASIC that it seek an order pursuant to s 6 of the Federal Proceedings (Costs) Act 1981 (Cth) (the Act). A submission was then made as to why the Court should exercise its discretion in favour of the grant of a costs certificate if the requested application was made by ASIC.
By its submission, ASIC contended, quite rightly in my view, that Mr Frugtniet’s contentions misunderstood the occasion and the circumstances in which a costs certificate could be granted. I mention that in passing but I need not be detained by that issue further. There is no application before me for a costs certificate to be issued pursuant to s 6 of the Act.
I certify that the preceding five (5) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Bromberg. Associate:
Dated: 15 September 2016
- AGLC
- Frugtniet v Australian Securities and Investments Commission (No 2) [2016] FCA 1124
- Case
- [2016] FCA 1124
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issue before the court was whether costs should follow the event, meaning whether the party that prevailed in the proceedings should be awarded costs. The court needed to consider the applicable legal principles and precedents governing the allocation of costs in such circumstances. This involved an examination of the relevant legislation, case law, and any other pertinent factors that might influence the decision on costs.
The court considered the principle that costs generally follow the event, which means that the prevailing party is entitled to be awarded costs unless there are exceptional circumstances that warrant a departure from this principle. The court found that ASIC, as the successful party in the underlying proceeding, was entitled to costs as a matter of right. The court also noted that the applicant's appeal was not successful and that there were no exceptional circumstances that would justify departing from the usual rule. Consequently, the court ruled that the costs of the appeal should be borne by the applicant, Frugtniet.
The final order of the court was that the applicant, Frugtniet, pay the respondent's costs of and incidental to the appeal. This decision was in line with the court's reasoning that the prevailing party should be awarded costs unless there are exceptional circumstances to the contrary.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The applicant pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the appeal.
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.