Court of Appeal
Supreme Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: John Anthony Arena Pty Ltd v Franpina Developments Pty Ltd [2022] NSWCA 139 Hearing dates: 2 August 2022 Date of orders: 5 August 2022 Decision date: 05 August 2022 Before: Macfarlan JA
Kirk JADecision: Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Catchwords: COSTS — Application for leave to appeal from costs order — Proceedings dismissed by consent — Costs awarded against defendants — Whether defendants capitulated to plaintiff — No issue of principle or question of general public importance
Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), s 98(1)
Contracts Review Act 1980 (NSW)
Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW), s 101(2)
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules, r 42.1
Cases Cited: Dalma Formwork (Australia) Pty Ltd v Maricic (No 3) [2008] NSWCA 29
Edwards Madigan Torzillo Briggs Pty Ltd v Gloria Stack [2003] NSWCA 302
Hillsea Pty Ltd v Joseph [2020] NSWCA 55
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40
Jaycar Pty Limited v Lombardo [2011] NSWCA 284
Re Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs; Ex Parte Lai Qin (1997) 186 CLR 622; [1997] HCA 6
Shellharbour City Council v Minister for Local Government [2017] NSWCA 256
Category: Procedural rulings Parties: John Anthony Arena Pty Ltd (First Applicant)
Franpina Developments Pty Ltd (Respondent)
Dr John Anthony Arena (Second Applicant)Representation: Advocates:
J M Ireland QC, solicitor (Applicants)
C J Birch SC (Respondent)
Solicitors:
D C Balog & Associates (Applicants)
Hamilton Locke (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2022/62942 Publication restriction: None Decision under appeal
- Court or tribunal:
- Supreme Court of New South Wales
- Jurisdiction:
- Civil
- Citation:
Franpina Developments Pty Ltd v John Anthony Arena Pty Ltd [2022] NSWSC 57
- Date of Decision:
- 4 February 2022
- Before:
- Darke J
- File Number(s):
- 2020/00364465
Judgment
-
MACFARLAN JA: I agree with Kirk JA.
-
KIRK JA: The applicants seek leave to appeal from a decision of Darke J of 4 February 2022, in which his Honour ordered the applicants to pay the costs of the respondent on the ordinary basis. The proceedings, which had been brought by the respondent, were resolved by consent orders. His Honour made the costs order on the basis that those orders constituted a capitulation on the part of the applicants.
-
In my view the application for leave to appeal should be refused with costs.
Background
-
The first applicant, John Anthony Arena Pty Ltd (JAA), is a company controlled by the second applicant, Dr John Arena and his wife. Dr Arena’s mother, Mrs Giuseppa Arena, is the owner of a property in North Ryde. She is also a director and the sole shareholder of the respondent, Franpina Developments Pty Ltd (Franpina).
-
On 26 June 2019 Mrs Arena, in her personal capacity, and JAA entered into a Put and Call Option Deed (the Deed), under which Mrs Arena granted JAA the option of purchasing the property in North Ryde.
-
By a statement of claim filed on 23 December 2020, Franpina challenged the Deed.…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read John Anthony Arena Pty Ltd v Franpina Developments Pty Ltd and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2022] NSWCA 139
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the respondents had effectively "capitulated" to the applicant in the original proceedings, thereby justifying the award of costs against them despite the consent dismissal. The court was required to consider whether the circumstances of the consent dismissal raised an issue of principle or a question of general public importance that warranted granting leave to appeal from the costs order.
Macfarlan and Kirk JJA found that the respondents had not demonstrated that the costs order involved an issue of principle or a question of general public importance. Their Honours concluded that the respondents had failed to establish any grounds for granting leave to appeal, as the dispute essentially concerned the application of established principles to the specific facts of the case, rather than a novel or significant legal question.
Consequently, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed, and the respondents were ordered to pay the costs of the application.
Orders
Orders of the court
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
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.