Garner v Central Innovation Pty Limited

Case [2022] FCA 711


FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Garner v Central Innovation Pty Limited [2022] FCA 711

Appeal from: Central Innovation Pty Ltd v Garner (No 4) [2020] FCA 1796
File number(s): NSD 69 of 2021
Judgment of: HALLEY J
Date of judgment: 17 June 2022
Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – order for costs on appeal to be fixed – funds paid into Court as security for costs be paid to the respondents
Legislation:

Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) s 122

Federal Court Act 1976 (Cth) s 25

Cases cited:

Central Innovation Pty Ltd v Garner (No 4) [2020] FCA 1796

Commercial Banking Corporation of Sydney Limited v Colonial Financiers of Australia Pty Ltd [1972] VR 702

Garner v Central Innovation Pty Ltd [2022] FCAFC 64

Division: General Division
Registry: New South Wales
National Practice Area: Commercial and Corporations
Sub-area: Commercial Contracts, Banking, Finance and Insurance
Number of paragraphs: 11
Date of hearing: The orders were determined on the papers.
Solicitor for the Appellant: AJH Lawyers
Solicitor for the Respondents: SD Commercial Lawyers

ORDERS

NSD 69 of 2021
BETWEEN:

GARY GARNER

Appellant

AND:

CENTRAL INNOVATION PTY LIMITED (ACN 123 240 362)

First Respondent

INTERCAD PTY LTD (ACN 072 666 016)

Second Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

HALLEY J

DATE OF ORDER:

17 JUNE 2022

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The costs of the respondents of the appeal be fixed in the sum of $117,000.00.

2.The appellant’s funds in the aggregate sum of $100,000.00 which are currently held by the Federal Court of Australia and which were paid into the Federal Court of Australia to provide for the first respondent’s and second respondent’s security for costs of this proceeding, be paid to the first respondent and the second respondent by depositing them into their solicitor’s trust account, details of which are as follows:

Bank: Commonwealth Bank of Australia Ltd

Name: SD Commercial Lawyers’ law practice trust account

BSB: 062 018

Account number: 1049 8710

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


REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

HALLEY J:

  1. On 21 April 2022, the Full Court made an order dismissing the appeal with costs from the decision of the primary judge in Central Innovation Pty Ltd v Garner (No 4) [2020] FCA 1796 and published its reasons: Garner v Central Innovation Pty Ltd [2022] FCAFC 64.

  2. The appellant had provided security for costs in the sum of $100,000 for the appeal and that sum had been paid into Court pursuant to orders made by Justice Rares on 24 May 2021 requiring the sum to be paid into Court in three tranches between 7 June 2021 and 2 August 2021.

  3. The respondents now seek an order that their costs of the appeal be fixed in sum of $117,000 and that the funds paid into Court by the appellant should be released to them by a payment into their solicitors’ trust account. The respondents rely on an affidavit of Stephen D’Emilio sworn 7 June 2022.

  4. On 18 May 2022, the appellant became…

Continue reading Garner v Central Innovation Pty Limited

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Garner v Central Innovation Pty Limited [2020] FCA 1796
Case
[2022] FCA 711
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Garner v Central Innovation Pty Limited involved an appeal regarding costs in a proceeding before the Federal Court of Australia. The central dispute revolved around the assessment of costs incurred by the respondents during the appeal and the subsequent determination of whether funds paid into court as security for these costs should be paid to the respondents.

The court was required to decide on two main issues. First, it needed to ascertain the appropriate amount of costs to be awarded to the respondents for the appeal. Second, it had to determine whether the appellant's funds, which had been paid into court to secure the respondents' costs, should be transferred to the respondents.

The court found that the total costs for the respondents of the appeal should be fixed at $117,000. Given that the appellant had already paid $100,000 into the court as security for these costs, the court ordered that the remaining $17,000 be paid by the appellant to the respondents. Additionally, the court ruled that the $100,000 already paid into court be deposited into the trust account of the respondents' solicitor.

In summary, the court fixed the respondents' costs at $117,000 and ordered that the $100,000 already paid into court be transferred to the respondents' solicitor, leaving the appellant to pay the remaining $17,000.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The costs of the respondents of the appeal be fixed in the sum of $117,000.00.

2. The appellant’s funds in the aggregate sum of $100,000.00 which are currently held by the Federal Court of Australia and which were paid into the Federal Court of Australia to provide for the first respondent’s and second respondent’s security for costs of this proceeding, be paid to the first respondent and the second respondent by depositing them into their solicitor’s trust account, details of which are as follows:

Bank: Commonwealth Bank of Australia Ltd

Name: SD Commercial Lawyers’ law practice trust account

BSB: 062 018

Account number: 1049 8710

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.