FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Morris v McConaghy Australia Pty Ltd (No 5) [2018] FCA 1582
File number: NSD 1195 of 2017 Judge: PERRAM J Date of judgment: 19 October 2018 Catchwords: COSTS – whether indemnity costs should be ordered against respondent – where respondent successfully defended application for deemed service – where applicant not at fault for ineffective foreign service Legislation: Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 37M Cases cited: Colgate-Palmolive Company v Cussons Pty Limited [1993] FCA 801; 46 FCR 225 Date of hearing: 19 October 2018 Registry: New South Wales Division: General Division National Practice Area: Commercial and Corporations Sub-area: Commercial Contracts, Banking, Finance and Insurance Category: Catchwords Number of paragraphs: 5 Counsel for the Applicant: Mr E Cox SC Solicitor for the Applicant: Aus Ship Lawyers Counsel for First and Fourth Respondents: The First and Fourth Respondents did not appear Counsel for the Second Respondent: Mr A Woods Solicitor for the Second Respondent: Lander & Rogers Counsel for the Third Respondent: Ms S Scott Solicitor for the Third Respondent: Mahony Law ORDERS
NSD 1195 of 2017 BETWEEN: JONATHAN MORRIS
Applicant
AND: MCCONAGHY AUSTRALIA PTY LTD ACN 52 168 218 380
First Respondent
MC2 COMPOSITES LTD (A COMPANY INCORPORATED IN THE CAYMAN ISLANDS)
Second Respondent
MARK EVANS
Third Respondent
TIGER YACHT MANAGEMENT LTD (A COMPANY INCORPORATED IN THE CAYMAN ISLANDS)
Fourth Respondent
JUDGE:
PERRAM J
DATE OF ORDER:
19 OCTOBER 2018
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The Second Respondent pay the Applicant’s costs of Prayer 1 of the interlocutory application filed 27 July 2018 on an indemnity basis payable forthwith.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
PERRAM J:
On 10 October 2018 I determined an application by the Applicant for deemed service on the Second Respondent: Morris v McConaghy Australia Pty Ltd (No 4) [2018] FCA 1516. The Second Respondent (‘MC2’) is incorporated in the Cayman Islands. In the circumstances which were set out in those reasons, it appeared that it had not been correctly served through no fault of the Applicant. Following argument, I concluded that r 10.48 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) did not permit an order for deemed service to be made because the matters which would enliven that rule had not been made out. At [22] of the reasons for judgment I foreshadowed that I would entertain an application that MC2 and some of the persons standing behind it should have to pay the Applicant’s costs of the application for deemed service.
When the matter was called on today, Mr Cox SC, who appeared for the Applicant, indicated that he did not wish at this time to proceed in relation to the persons who stood behind MC2, but he did pursue an application for indemnity costs in relation to MC2 itself. Mr Woods, who appeared on a conditional basis for MC2, pointed out that the application which…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Morris v McConaghy Australia Pty Ltd (No 5) 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
- [2018] FCA 1582
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court centred on the principles governing indemnity costs in litigation and whether they should be awarded in cases where the party seeking the costs is not at fault for the ineffective service. The court had to consider whether the second respondent's successful defence against the application for deemed service warranted an indemnity costs order against them, particularly when the applicant had not contributed to the failure of the service. The court needed to balance the equitable principles of indemnity costs with the procedural fairness and responsibility of the parties involved in the litigation.
In reaching its decision, the court carefully examined the circumstances leading to the ineffective service and the respective responsibilities of the parties. The court determined that the second respondent had a duty to ensure the proper service of legal documents and that their successful defence against the application for deemed service did not absolve them of the consequences of that failure. The court found that the applicant was not at fault for the ineffective service, and thus, the second respondent should bear the costs on an indemnity basis. The court ordered the second respondent to pay the applicant’s costs associated with the interlocutory application on this basis, highlighting the importance of procedural integrity and the equitable treatment of parties in litigation.
The court’s orders were clear and precise. The second respondent was required to pay the applicant’s costs of Prayer 1 of the interlocutory application filed on 27 July 2018 on an indemnity basis, with payment to be made forthwith. This decision underscored the importance of ensuring that parties who are not at fault for procedural failures are not left to bear the financial burden of those failures, reinforcing the principle of fairness in litigation.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The Second Respondent pay the Applicant’s costs of Prayer 1 of the interlocutory application filed 27 July 2018 on an indemnity basis payable forthwith.
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.