HPM PTY LTD -v- FEAR & ORS [2002] WASCA 249 (S)
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2002] WASCA 249 (S) | |
| THE FULL COURT (WA) | |||
| Case No: | FUL:83/2001 | 2 AUGUST & 9 SEPTEMBER 2002 | |
| Coram: | MALCOLM CJ MURRAY J STEYTLER J | 9/09/02 | |
| 20/11/02 | |||
| 9 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Mr Blakeley ordered to bear respondents' costs of appeal personally | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | HPM PTY LTD CHARLES ANTHONY CANDLIN FEAR RESI-STATEWIDE MORTGAGE CORPORATION LTD ROBERT CLAUDE COOK TERENCE CORNELIUS McMANUS ROBERT HENRI DE BUF PATRICIA ANNE DE BUF REGINALD SARSFIELD FINN ELIZABETH ROSE FINN DONALD GEORGE LYSTER LEONE BEATRICE LYSTER JOHN SELSMARK ROGER LLOYD GEORGE RICHARD-COOMBES IDA ELEANOR RICHARD-COOMBES GRAEME CAMPBELL REYNOLDS LESLEY HANNAH REYNOLDS JOSEPH COCI HELEN JOY COCI ERNEST RAMPELLINI JENNIFER ANNE RAMPELLINI PETER JOE CHITTENDEN MICHAEL SKUBA MICHAEL CYRIL HALPIN GEORGE HUGH MARGETTS GWENDOLINE MARY MARGETTS TOLEEN NOMINEES PTY LTD LAVIN NOMINEES PTY LTD TUDOR COURT INVESTMENTS PTY LTD MacDOUGALL PTY LTD OREGON NOMINEES PTY LTD |
Catchwords: | Costs Award of costs against non-party Circumstances in which an order of that kind might be made Where non-party managing the litigation has an interest in the subject of the litigation Relevance of failure to apply for security for costs or to give timely warning of proposed application Whether costs should be awarded on indemnity basis Turns on own facts |
Legislation: | Corporations Act, s 242 Corporations Law, s 237 Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA), O 4 r 3(2) Supreme Court Act 1935 (WA), s 37(1) |
Case References: | Aiden Shipping Co Ltd v Interbulk Ltd [1986] AC 965 Carborundum Abrasives Pty Ltd v Bank of New Zealand (No 2) [1992] 3 NZLR 757 Duskwood Pty Ltd v Bellara Willows Pty Ltd [2001] WASC 281 Flinn v Flinn [1999] 3 VR 712 In re Land and Property Trust Co Plc [1991] 1 WLR 601 Knight v FP Special Assets Ltd (1992) 174 CLR 178 National Justice Compania Naviera SA v Prudential Assurance Co Ltd (No 2) [2000] 1 WLR 603 Symphony Group Plc v Hodgson [1994] QB 179 Vestris v Cashman (1998) 72 SASR 449 Fountain Selected Meats (Sales) Pty Ltd v International Produce Merchants Ltd (1988) 81 ALR 397 Re Crittendon; Ex parte Law Institute of Victoria [1958] VR 101 Re Malley SM; Ex parte Gardner [2001] WASCA 83 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE FULL COURT (WA) CITATION : HPM PTY LTD -v- FEAR & ORS [2002] WASCA 249 (S) CORAM : MALCOLM CJ
- MURRAY J
STEYTLER J
- 9 SEPTEMBER 2002
DECISION : 20 NOVEMBER 2002 FILE NO/S : FUL 83 of 2001 BETWEEN : HPM PTY LTD
- Appellant
AND
CHARLES ANTHONY CANDLIN FEAR
First Respondent
RESI-STATEWIDE MORTGAGE CORPORATION LTD
Second Respondent
ROBERT CLAUDE COOK
TERENCE CORNELIUS McMANUS
ROBERT HENRI DE BUF
PATRICIA ANNE DE BUF
REGINALD SARSFIELD FINN
ELIZABETH ROSE FINN
DONALD GEORGE LYSTER
LEONE BEATRICE LYSTER
(Page…
Continue reading HPM Pty Ltd v Fear
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- HPM Pty Ltd v Fear [2002] WASCA 249 (S)
- Case
- [2002] WASCA 249 (S)
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, HPM Pty Ltd sought an order that the respondents' costs of appeal be borne by a non-party, Mr Blakeley. The appeal arose from a decision made in the Family Court regarding a dispute between HPM Pty Ltd and the respondents concerning the sale of a property. The primary issue was whether the court could order Mr Blakeley, who was managing the litigation for the respondents, to bear the respondents' costs of appeal personally. Additionally, the court had to determine whether the costs should be awarded on an indemnity basis, given Mr Blakeley's interest in the subject matter of the litigation and his failure to apply for security for costs or to give timely warning of his proposed application.
The court examined the principles governing orders for costs against non-parties, particularly in cases where the non-party has an interest in the subject matter of the litigation. It noted that the power to order costs against a non-party is not exercised lightly and is generally reserved for cases where the non-party has acted unreasonably or where there are exceptional circumstances. The court found that Mr Blakeley's interest in the litigation and his failure to provide timely warnings about his application for security for costs constituted exceptional circumstances warranting an order for costs against him personally. Furthermore, the court held that an indemnity costs order was appropriate given the circumstances of the case.
Consequently, Mr Blakeley was ordered to bear the respondents' costs of appeal personally. The court emphasised that the decision was made on the specific facts of this case and did not set a precedent for broader application. The final orders included a direction that Mr Blakeley was to personally cover the respondents' costs of appeal, reflecting the court's view that his actions warranted such an outcome.
The court examined the principles governing orders for costs against non-parties, particularly in cases where the non-party has an interest in the subject matter of the litigation. It noted that the power to order costs against a non-party is not exercised lightly and is generally reserved for cases where the non-party has acted unreasonably or where there are exceptional circumstances. The court found that Mr Blakeley's interest in the litigation and his failure to provide timely warnings about his application for security for costs constituted exceptional circumstances warranting an order for costs against him personally. Furthermore, the court held that an indemnity costs order was appropriate given the circumstances of the case.
Consequently, Mr Blakeley was ordered to bear the respondents' costs of appeal personally. The court emphasised that the decision was made on the specific facts of this case and did not set a precedent for broader application. The final orders included a direction that Mr Blakeley was to personally cover the respondents' costs of appeal, reflecting the court's view that his actions warranted such an outcome.
Orders
Orders of the court
Mr Blakeley ordered to bear respondents' costs of appeal personally
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.