Gandel Metals Pty Ltd, in the matter of Centennial Mining Limited (Subject to Deed of Company Arrangement) v Centennial Mining Limited (No 3)

Case [2020] FCA 794


FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Gandel Metals Pty Ltd, in the matter of Centennial Mining Limited (Subject to Deed of Company Arrangement) v Centennial Mining Limited (No 3) [2020] FCA 794

File number: VID 688 of 2019
Judge: MIDDLETON J
Date of judgment: 5 June 2020
Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – costs – costs follow the event – relief to be confined to that claimed in originating application
Date of hearing: 12 March 2020
Date of last submissions: 3 June 2020
Registry: Melbourne
Division: General Division
National Practice Area: Commercial and Corporations
Sub-area: Corporations and Corporate Insolvency
Category: Catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 13
Counsel for the Plaintiff: Mr S Maiden QC with Mr A Ounapuu
Solicitor for the Plaintiff: HWL Ebsworth
Counsel for the Defendants: Mr P D Crutchfield QC with Mr P R Edgar
Solicitor for the Defendants: Lavan
Counsel for the Interested Party: Mr H Austin QC and Mr C R Brown
Solicitor for the Interested Party: CCK Lawyers

ORDERS

VID 688 of 2019

IN THE MATTER OF CENTENNIAL MINING LIMITED (SUBJECT TO DEED OF COMPANY ARRANGEMENT) (ACN 149 308 921)

BETWEEN:

GANDEL METALS PTY LTD (ACN 102 347 955)

Plaintiff

AND:

CENTENNIAL MINING LIMITED (SUBJECT TO DEED OF COMPANY ARRANGEMENT) (ACN 149 308 921)

First Defendant

MALDON RESOURCES PTY LTD (ACN 090 458 665)

Second Defendant

RICHARD SCOTT TUCKER

Third Defendant

V C OLDFIELD INVESTMENTS PTY LIMITED ACN 149 465 805 AS TRUSTEE FOR THE OLDFIELD FAMILY TRUST NO. 3

Interested Party

JUDGE:

MIDDLETON J

DATE OF ORDER:

5 JUNE 2020

IT BE DECLARED THAT:

1.The Plaintiff is subrogated on a pro-rata basis to all rights of Squadron Resources Pty Ltd (Squadron) under the mining mortgage granted to Squadron by the First Defendant and formerly registered on the Victorian Mining Register Tenement Number MIN5294 as Instrument F90010146.

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

2.The First to Fifth Defendants pay the Plaintiff’s costs, including reserved costs, of the proceedings up to 11 February 2020 on a standard basis to be taxed in default of agreement.

3.Subject to Order 13 of the orders made 20 February 2020 by Moshinsky J, the First to Fifth Defendants and the Interested Party pay the Plaintiff’s costs, including reserved costs, of the proceedings on a joint and several basis from 11 February 2020 to judgment on a standard basis to be taxed in default of agreement.

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


REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

MIDDLETON J:

  1. On 15 May 2020 I published my reasons in the above proceedings, and ordered that the parties confer and within seven days provide to the Court an agreed minute of order (including as to costs or any other directions), or if no agreement, a short submission by each party as to the appropriate minute of order.

  2. The Plaintiff (‘Gandel’) proposed orders that:

    IT BE DECLARED THAT:

    1.From 10 August 2018, Gandel Metals Pty Ltd (ACN 102 347 955) (Gandel) is subrogated to all rights of Squadron Resources Pty Ltd (Squadron) under the mining mortgage granted to Squadron by Centennial Mining Limited (ACN 149 308 921) (Centennial) and formerly registered on the Victorian Mining Register Tenement Number MIN5294 as Instrument F90010146, to secure repayment of the advance of $2,171,271.64 made by Gandel to Centennial together with interest on that amount calculated at 12.5% per annum from the date of advance.

    THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

    2.The first to fifth defendants pay the plaintiff’s costs, including reserved costs, of the proceedings up to 11 February 2020 on a standard basis to be taxed in default of agreement.

    3.The first to fifth defendants and the interested party pay the plaintiff’s costs, including reserved costs, of the proceedings on a joint and several basis from 11 February 2020 to judgment on a standard basis to be taxed in default of agreement.

  3. The First to Fifth Defendants proposed orders that:

    IT BE DECLARED THAT:

    1.[From 10 August 2018], Gandel Metals Pty Ltd (ACN 102 347 955) (Gandel) is subrogated on a pro-rata basis to all rights of Squadron Resources Pty Ltd (Squadron) under the mining mortgage granted to Squadron by Centennial Mining Limited (ACN 149 308 921) (Centennial) and formerly registered on the Victorian Mining Register Tenement Number MIN5294 as Instrument F90010146.

    THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

    2.The first and second defendants pay the plaintiff’s costs, including reserved costs, of the proceedings up to 11 February 2020 on a standard basis to be taxed in default of agreement.

    3.Subject to order 13 of the orders made 20 February 2020, the first and second defendants and the interested party pay the plaintiff’s costs, including reserved costs, of the proceedings on a joint and several basis from 11 February 2020 to judgment on a standard basis to be taxed in default of agreement.

  4. V C Oldfield Investments Pty Ltd (‘V C Oldfield’) proposed orders that:

    IT BE DECLARED THAT:

    1.Gandel Metals Pty Ltd (ACN 102 347 955) (Gandel) is subrogated on a pro-rata basis to all rights of Squadron Resources Pty Ltd (Squadron) under the mining mortgage granted to Squadron by Centennial Mining Limited (ACN 149 308 921) (Centennial) and formerly registered on the Victorian Mining Register Tenement Number MIN5294 as Instrument F90010146, to secue repayment of the advance of $2,171,271.64 made by Gandel to Centennial.

    THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

    2.The first to fifth defendants pay the plaintiff’s costs, including reserved costs, of the proceedings up to 11 February 2020 on a standard basis to be taxed in default of agreement.

    3.Subject to order 13 made on 20 February 2020 by Justice Moshinsky, the first to fifth defendants and the interested party pay the plaintiff’s costs, including reserved costs, of the proceedings on a joint and several basis from 11 February 2020 to judgment on a standard basis to be taxed in default of agreement.

  5. Matters in dispute between the parties are whether:

    (1)the orders should include a date;

    (2)the orders should determine the quantum owed to Gandel and applicable interest rate;

    (3)the orders should include a pro-rata reference; and

    (4)costs.

  6. As to the date ‘from 10 August 2018’ sought by Gandel, this was not part of the declaration sought in the proceedings, and I do not propose to depart from the relief sought in the originating application where this is opposed.

  7. As to the pro-rata subrogation, consistent with my reasons, Gandel is to be subrogated to the amount advanced by Gandel (ie $2,171,271.64) on 10 August 2018 to Squadron Resources Pty Ltd.  Nevertheless, I do not propose to make the declaration other than substantially in the terms sought in the originating application but with the inclusion of the reference to “on a pro-rata basis”, particularly as there is the dispute relating to interest which could impact upon the amount to be included in the declaration. 

  8. As to interest, I do not propose to include an interest component as this was not the subject of argument nor the subject of specific relief sought in the originating application.  If there is an ongoing dispute as to interest, then this can be dealt with separately and after hearing further evidence on this issue and submissions.

  9. As to costs, I consider that the Deed Administrators should be held liable (along with the First and Second Defendants) to pay the costs, and the costs orders relating to the period from 11 February 2020 should be made subject to Order 13 made by Moshinsky J on 20 February 2020.

  10. I do not accept that the reasons advanced by the Deed Administrators justify their being excused from liability for any costs order made in favour of the Plaintiff, the successful party.  I understand that they were a necessary party and joined on this basis, but they participated in the hearing and put submissions contrary to the interests of the Plaintiff.

  11. I will declare that Gandel is subrogated on a pro-rata basis to all rights of Squadron under the mining mortgage granted to Squadron by Centennial and formerly registered on the Victorian Mining Register Tenement Number MIN5294 as Instrument F90010146.

  12. I will order that:

    (1)The First to Fifth Defendants pay Gandel’s costs, including reserved costs, of the proceedings up to 11 February 2020 on a standard basis to be taxed in default of agreement.

    (2)Subject to Order 13 of the orders made on 20 February 2020 by Moshinsky J, the First to Fifth Defendants and V C Oldfield pay Gandel’s costs, including reserved costs, of the proceedings on a joint and several basis from 11 February 2020 to judgment on a standard basis to be taxed in default of agreement.

  13. I should indicate that whilst it would be desirable to deal with all the issues that may still exist between the parties (such as to interest), it is not appropriate to go beyond the ambit of the dispute that was argued before the Court.

I certify that the preceding thirteen (13) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Middleton.

Associate:

Dated:       5 June 2020

Details
AGLC
Gandel Metals Pty Ltd, in the matter of Centennial Mining Limited (Subject to Deed of Company Arrangement) v Centennial Mining Limited (No 3) [2020] FCA 794
Case
[2020] FCA 794
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Gandel Metals Pty Ltd, in the matter of Centennial Mining Limited (Subject to Deed of Company Arrangement) v Centennial Mining Limited (No 3) involved a dispute regarding costs incurred in proceedings between parties. The Federal Court was tasked with determining the allocation and taxation of these costs. The plaintiff sought costs from the defendants, which included the first to fifth defendants and an interested party.

The primary legal issue the court had to address was the proper allocation of costs in the proceedings, specifically whether the plaintiff was entitled to recover the costs it had incurred. The court needed to determine whether the defendants were liable for the plaintiff's costs from the outset of the proceedings up to a specific date, and if so, whether these costs should be paid on a joint and several basis thereafter. Additionally, the court had to consider the scope of the relief that the plaintiff was entitled to claim, ensuring that it was confined to the costs claimed in the originating application.

The court found that the defendants were indeed liable for the plaintiff's costs up to a certain date on a standard basis. From that date forward, the defendants and the interested party were to pay the plaintiff's costs on a joint and several basis. The court emphasised that the relief granted must be strictly confined to the costs claimed in the originating application. The court further directed that the costs were to be taxed in default of agreement, ensuring that the process for determining the exact amount of costs to be paid was clearly outlined.

The final orders included a directive that the first to fifth defendants pay the plaintiff's costs up to a specific date on a standard basis, while from that date onwards, the first to fifth defendants and the interested party were to pay the plaintiff's costs on a joint and several basis. This decision provided clarity on the allocation of costs and the process for their taxation, ensuring that the plaintiff could recover the costs it had legitimately incurred in the proceedings.

Orders

Orders of the court

2. The First to Fifth Defendants pay the Plaintiff’s costs, including reserved costs, of the proceedings up to 11 February 2020 on a standard basis to be taxed in default of agreement.

3. Subject to Order 13 of the orders made 20 February 2020 by Moshinsky J, the First to Fifth Defendants and the Interested Party pay the Plaintiff’s costs, including reserved costs, of the proceedings on a joint and several basis from 11 February 2020 to judgment on a standard basis to be taxed in default of agreement.

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.