Meneses v Directed Electronics OE Pty Ltd (No 2)

Case [2019] FCAFC 200

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Meneses v Directed Electronics OE Pty Ltd (No 2) [2019] FCAFC 200

Appeal from: Directed Electronics OE Pty Ltd v OE Solutions Pty Ltd (No 3) [2019] FCA 285
File number: VID 266 of 2019
Judges: MOSHINSKY, WHEELAHAN AND ABRAHAM JJ
Date of judgment: 20 November 2019
Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – costs – where appeal allowed and interlocutory application remitted for re-determination – where respondent contended there were special circumstances such as to justify a departure from the usual order that costs follow the event
Cases cited:

Commissioner of Taxation v AusNet Transmission Group Pty Ltd (No 2) [2015] FCAFC 124

Electrolytic Zinc Co of Australasia Ltd v Cieslak [1969] Tas SR 50

Oshlack v Richmond River Council (1998) 193 CLR 72

Ruddock v Vadarlis (No 2) (2001) 115 FCR 229

Victoria v Sportsbet Pty Ltd (No 2) [2012] FCAFC 174

Wardle v Agricultural and Rural Finance Pty Ltd (No 2) [2012] NSWCA 388
Date of hearing: Determined on the papers
Date of last submissions: 15 November 2019
Registry: Victoria
Division: General Division
National Practice Area: Commercial and Corporations
Sub-area: Commercial Contracts, Banking, Finance and Insurance
Category: Catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 8
Counsel for the Appellants: Dr S McNicol QC with Mr AN McRobert
Solicitor for the Appellants: Norton Rose Fulbright
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr M Wise QC with Ms N Hickey
Solicitor for the Respondent: K & L Gates

ORDERS

VID 266 of 2019
BETWEEN:

JOHNNY MENESES

First Appellant

OE SOLUTIONS PTY LTD (ACN 119 188 019)

Second Appellant
AND:

DIRECTED ELECTRONICS OE PTY LTD (ACN 130 647 737)

Respondent

JUDGES:

MOSHINSKY, WHEELAHAN AND ABRAHAM JJ

DATE OF ORDER:

20 NOVEMBER 2019

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The respondent pay the appellants’ costs of the application for leave to appeal and the appeal.

2.The costs of the application before the primary judge be reserved for determination by the judge who hears and determines the application upon remittal or, in the alternative, the trial judge.

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


REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

THE COURT:

  1. On 1 November 2019, the Court published reasons for judgment in relation to this matter: Meneses v Directed Electronics OE Pty Ltd [2019] FCAFC 190. The orders of the Court included that the applicants have leave to appeal and that the appeal be allowed. In relation to costs, the relevant part of the costs order made by the primary judge was set aside and the parties were ordered to file and serve written submissions dealing with the costs of the application before the primary judge and the costs of the application for leave to appeal and the appeal. These reasons, which should be read together with the reasons for judgment dated 1 November 2019, deal with the issue of costs. We adopt the abbreviations used in the 1 November 2019 reasons.

  2. The positions of the parties may be summarised as follows:

    (a)The Meneses parties contend that Directed…

Continue reading Meneses v Directed Electronics OE Pty Ltd (No 2)

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Meneses v Directed Electronics OE Pty Ltd (No 2) [2019] FCAFC 200
Case
[2019] FCAFC 200
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, the case of Meneses v Directed Electronics OE Pty Ltd (No 2) involved an appeal against an interlocutory application. The appellants, Meneses, sought to challenge the respondent's motion to strike out their statement of claim, which the primary judge had granted. The crux of the dispute lay in whether the interlocutory application should be remitted for re-determination and, if so, whether there were special circumstances justifying a departure from the usual rule that costs follow the event.

The legal issues before the court were whether the appeal should be remitted for re-determination and whether the respondent's motion for special circumstances should be considered. The court had to determine if the primary judge erred in granting the motion to strike out the statement of claim and whether the appeal should be remitted to the primary judge for a fresh consideration. Additionally, the court had to decide whether the respondent's argument about special circumstances was sufficient to warrant a deviation from the usual order regarding costs.

The court held that the appeal should be remitted for re-determination, finding that the primary judge had erred in granting the motion to strike out the statement of claim. The respondent argued that special circumstances existed to justify a departure from the usual order that costs follow the event, but the court found that the respondent had not demonstrated such circumstances. Consequently, the court ordered that the respondent pay the appellants' costs of the application for leave to appeal and the appeal itself. The costs of the application before the primary judge were reserved for determination by the judge who hears and determines the application upon remittal or, in the alternative, the trial judge. This outcome underscores the importance of careful consideration in interlocutory applications and the rigorous application of the usual cost-following-the-event principle.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The respondent pay the appellants’ costs of the application for leave to appeal and the appeal.

2. The costs of the application before the primary judge be reserved for determination by the judge who hears and determines the application upon remittal or, in the alternative, the trial judge.

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.