Henderson v Amadio Pty Ltd

The case of Henderson v Amadio Pty Ltd is a complex litigation involving multiple parties and disputes, adjudicated by Heerey J in the Federal Court of Australia. The applicants, including Russell Fraser Henderson and others, sought relief against Amadio Pty Ltd and several other respondents, including Hudson Conway, Nevett Ford, Gray & Winter, and others, regarding an investment scheme involving the Coles Myer building. The applicants sought damages, cancellation of debts, and other reliefs, while the respondents, including Amadio, Hudson Conway, Nevett Ford, and others, defended the claims and brought cross-claims.

The court had to address several key legal issues, including the appropriateness of reductions in the applicants' costs for issues on which they failed, the validity of claims for indemnity costs based on the non-acceptance of settlement offers, the necessity of employing three counsel for the applicants, the appropriateness of daily fees for counsel, the rate of interest on costs, the principle of joint and several liability for costs, and the contribution between respondents. The court also had to consider the joinder of Metzke & Allan in the litigation and the appropriateness of their costs.

The court held that while the applicants were successful, they should not be penalized for raising issues that ultimately failed because it was necessary to explore all potential claims to recover from the wrongful conduct of the respondents. The court rejected the argument for indemnity costs based on the non-acceptance of settlement offers, except for costs incurred after a specific date. The court found it reasonable for the applicants to retain three counsel given the complexity of the case. The court directed that counsel's fees be taxed on a daily fee basis, reflecting the modern reality of litigation. The court ordered interest on costs at the statutory rate, except where justice required a lower rate. The court established a scheme for joint and several liability for costs and contribution between respondents, taking into account the time spent on issues on which each respondent failed. The court also addressed the joinder of Metzke & Allan, emphasizing the responsibility of lawyers in advising clients on the necessity and appropriateness of joining parties in litigation.

The court's final orders included an adjournment of the proceeding, the submission of minutes of proposed orders signed by all counsel, and specific directions on costs, including the basis for taxing counsel's fees, the rate of interest, and the contribution between respondents. The court also made orders regarding the costs of Bird Cameron Partners and Mr Balcam, and Bird Cameron's cross-claim against SGIO.