Glueck v Stang (No 2) - [2008] FCA 1439

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Glueck v Stang (No 2) [2008] FCA 1439
BRUNO ANTHONY GLUECK v MAURICE STANG, STEVEN KRITZLER, NOVAPHARM RESEARCH (AUSTRALIA) PTY LIMITED (ACN 003 086 637),
HYO SANG KWON, CAROL DITTERICK AND AERIS TECHNOLOGIES LTD
(ACN 093 977 336)
NSD 1021 OF 2007
LINDGREN J
3 SEPTEMBER 2008
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

NSD 1021 OF 2007

BETWEEN:

BRUNO ANTHONY GLUECK
Applicant

AND:

MAURICE STANG
First Respondent

STEVEN KRITZLER
Second Respondent

NOVAPHARM RESEARCH (AUSTRALIA) PTY LIMITED (ACN 003 086 637)
Third Respondent

HYO SANG KWON
Fourth Respondent

CAROL DITTERICK
Fifth Respondent

AERIS TECHNOLOGIES LTD
(ACN 093 977 336)
Sixth Respondent

JUDGE:

LINDGREN J

DATE OF ORDER:

3 SEPTEMBER 2008

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.        The applicant pay the costs of the former first respondent (Maurice Stang), second       respondent (Steven Kritzler) and fifth respondent (Carol Ditterick) in the proceeding to the extent that those costs are not already the subject of costs orders.
       To the extent not already covered by order 2 of the orders made on 23 July 2008, the applicant pay the third respondent's costs thrown away by reason of the applicant's      amendments, and proposed amendments, to his pleadings during the period 30 May         2008 to 23 July 2008 (inclusive of those dates).
3.        The costs referred to in order 1 above be quantified as a gross sum pursuant to O 62     r 4(2) in the amount of $57,857.88.
4.        The costs referred to in order 2 above and the costs the subject of order 2 of the orders           made on 23 July 2008 be quantified as a gross sum pursuant to O 62 r 4(2) in the          amount of $14,847.76.
5.         The applicant pay the amount of $57,857.88 referred to in order 3 by 24 September    2008 pursuant to O 62 r 3(2).
       The third respondent have liberty to apply at any time on three days' notice for an         order than the applicant pay the amount of $14,847.76 referred to in order 4 pursuant         to O 62 r 3(2).
Note:    Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

NSD 1021 OF 2007

BETWEEN:

BRUNO ANTHONY GLUECK
Applicant

AND:

MAURICE STANG
First Respondent

STEVEN KRITZLER
Second Respondent

NOVAPHARM RESEARCH (AUSTRALIA) PTY LIMITED (ACN 003 086 637)
Third Respondent

HYO SANG KWON
Fourth Respondent

CAROL DITTERICK
Fifth Respondent

AERIS TECHNOLOGIES LTD
(ACN 093 977 336)
Sixth Respondent

JUDGE:

LINDGREN J

DATE:

3 SEPTEMBER 2008

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

The applicant (Mr Glueck) commenced this proceeding on 6 June 2007 against Maurice Stang as respondent, Stephen Kritzler as second respondent, Novapharm Research (Australia) Pty Limited as third respondent, Hyo Sang Kwon as fourth respondent, Carol Ditterick as the fifth respondent and Aeris Technologies Limited as sixth respondent. There was a discontinuance against the fourth and sixth respondents. Initially, Rhodes Legal represented Mr Glueck. The proceeding relates to a…

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 Glueck v Stang (No 2)

Details

AGLC: Glueck v Stang (No 2) [2008] FCA 1439
Case: [2008] FCA 1439
Decision Date: 3 September 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The proceeding, Glueck v Stang (No 2), involved multiple parties including the applicant, Glueck, and various respondents. The dispute centred on the applicant's conduct in relation to amendments to pleadings and the costs associated with these amendments. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate costs that the applicant should bear due to his amendments to pleadings.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the applicant was liable for costs incurred by the respondents as a result of his amendments to pleadings, and if so, how these costs should be quantified and ordered to be paid. The court had to consider the extent of the costs that were recoverable under the rules and whether the costs were already covered by previous orders. Additionally, the court needed to decide on the appropriate time frame within which the costs should be paid.

The court found that the applicant was indeed liable for the costs incurred by the respondents due to his amendments to pleadings. The court quantified the costs and determined that the applicant should pay a gross sum of $57,857.88 to the specified respondents. The court also found that the applicant should pay an additional sum of $14,847.76, subject to further application by the third respondent. The court ordered that these costs be paid within specified timelines, with the primary sum due by 24 September 2008, and the secondary sum payable upon application by the third respondent.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The applicant pay the costs of the former first respondent (Maurice Stang), second respondent (Steven Kritzler) and fifth respondent (Carol Ditterick) in the proceeding to the extent that those costs are not already the subject of costs orders.

To the extent not already covered by order 2 of the orders made on 23 July 2008, the applicant pay the third respondent's costs thrown away by reason of the applicant's amendments, and proposed amendments, to his pleadings during the period 30 May 2008 to 23 July 2008 (inclusive of those dates).

3. The costs referred to in order 1 above be quantified as a gross sum pursuant to O 62 r 4(2) in the amount of $57,857.88.

4. The costs referred to in order 2 above and the costs the subject of order 2 of the orders made on 23 July 2008 be quantified as a gross sum pursuant to O 62 r 4(2) in the amount of $14,847.76.

5. The applicant pay the amount of $57,857.88 referred to in order 3 by 24 September 2008 pursuant to O 62 r 3(2).

The third respondent have liberty to apply at any time on three days' notice for an order than the applicant pay the amount of $14,847.76 referred to in order 4 pursuant to O 62 r 3(2).

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

LINDGREN J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: LINDGREN J

Full text does not contain this section.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NSD 1021 OF 2007

BETWEEN:	BRUNO ANTHONY GLUECK Applicant
AND:	MAURICE STANG First Respondent STEVEN KRITZLER Second Respondent NOVAPHARM RESEARCH (AUSTRALIA) PTY LIMITED (ACN 003 086 637) Third Respondent HYO SANG KWON Fourth Respondent CAROL DITTERICK Fifth Respondent AERIS TECHNOLOGIES LTD (ACN 093 977 336) Sixth Respondent
JUDGE:	LINDGREN J
DATE OF ORDER:	3 SEPTEMBER 2008
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

JUDGE:	LINDGREN J
DATE:	3 SEPTEMBER 2008
PLACE:	SYDNEY