Motor Trades Association of Australia Superannuation Fund Pty Ltd v Rickus (No 3)

The case of Motor Trades Association of Australia Superannuation Fund Pty Ltd v Rickus (No 3) involved the Motor Trades Association of Australia Superannuation Fund Pty Ltd, referred to as the Applicant, and Mr Rickus, the Cross-Claimant. The Applicant was seeking the production of certain documents from Mr Rickus, who had previously served as an officer of the Applicant, which had been provided to the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority. The legal dispute centred on whether Mr Rickus was entitled to an indemnity for legal costs incurred in resisting the Applicant's claim for the documents under clause 2.2 of the Deed and whether such costs were allowable under section 199A of the Corporations Act 2001. The case also considered whether section 299 of the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act was a bar to the Applicant's claim.

The court had to determine whether clause 2.2 of the Deed provided for an indemnity to Mr Rickus for legal costs he incurred in resisting the Applicant's claim for the production of documents, and whether such costs were allowable under the Corporations Act. Additionally, the court had to decide if section 299 of the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act prevented the Applicant from making the claim against Mr Rickus. The court concluded that the indemnity under clause 2.2 of the Deed was confined to claims made otherwise than by the Trustee itself, and that the liability to which Mr Rickus was exposed was incurred by him as an officer of the Applicant. Furthermore, the court found that the legal costs incurred by Mr Rickus in resisting the Applicant's claim were not allowable under section 199A of the Corporations Act as they were costs incurred in relation to a liability he owed to the Applicant. The court also dismissed the argument that section 299 of the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act barred the Applicant from making the claim against Mr Rickus.

The court dismissed the Cross-Claim made by Mr Rickus against the Applicant and ordered that each party was to bear its own costs up until the date leave was granted to the Applicant to discontinue its proceeding. Additionally, Mr Rickus was ordered to pay the costs of the Applicant in relation to the dismissal of the Cross-Claim. This decision was made under Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules, which governs the settlement and entry of orders.