Murphy v Overton Investments Pty Limited [2002] FCAFC 176
JOHN JAMES MURPHY & ANOR v OVERTON INVESTMENTS PTY LIMITED N 1664 OF 2001
LINDGREN, SACKVILLE & STONE JJ SYDNEY 6 JUNE 2002
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
N 1664 OF 2001
ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN:
JOHN JAMES MURPHY AND DAPHNE MURPHY APPELLANTS
AND:
OVERTON INVESTMENTS PTY LIMITED RESPONDENT
JUDGES:
LINDGREN, SACKVILLE & STONE JJ
DATE OF ORDER:
6 JUNE 2002
WHERE MADE:
SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
The respondent pay fifty per cent of the appellants’ costs of the appeal.
The respondent pay the appellants’ costs of the cross-appeal.
Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
N 1664 OF 2001
ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN:
JOHN JAMES MURPHY AND DAPHNE MURPHY APPELLANTS
AND:
OVERTON INVESTMENTS PTY LIMITED RESPONDENT
JUDGES:
LINDGREN, SACKVILLE & STONE JJ
DATE:
6 JUNE 2002
PLACE:
SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
In a judgment delivered on 16 May 2002, this Court allowed the appeal in part, dismissed the cross-appeal and remitted the proceedings to the primary Judge for determination in accordance with the reasons for judgment. The parties were directed to file written submissions as to costs.
The respondent points out that the issues raised by the cross-appeal (which was treated as a notice of contention) took relatively little time and involved relatively little preparation by the parties. Nonetheless, this is no reason why the respondent, which unsuccessfully pursued the cross-appeal, should not pay the appellants’ costs of the cross-appeal. Had the respondent simply filed a notice of contention rather than a cross-appeal we would have structured the orders so as to require it to pay the appellants’ costs occasioned by the notice of contention.
The appellants succeeded on one issue raised by their appeal (the question of capital loss), but failed on all others. Some of the argument advanced by the appellants had not been put to the primary Judge and others required more time to unravel than should have been necessary because of the rather disorganised way in which submissions were put to the Court. In these circumstances, some departure from the usual rule that costs follow the event is warranted. We consider that justice will be done if the respondent is ordered to pay fifty per cent of the appellants’ costs of the appeal.
I certify that the preceding three (3) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justices Lindgren, Sackville & Stone.
Associate:
Dated: 6 June 2002
Counsel for the Appellants:
Mr G Moore with Mr S Newton
Solicitor for the Appellants:
The Aged-Care Rights Service Inc
Counsel for the Respondent:
Mr A McInerney with Mr R Hiatt
Solicitor for the Respondent:
Gadens Lawyers
Date of last Written Submissions of Costs:
31 May 2002
Date of Costs Judgment:
6 June 2002
Details
AGLC
Murphy v Overton Investments Pty Limited [2002] FCAFC 176
Case
[2002] FCAFC 176
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Murphy v Overton Investments Pty Limited involved the appellants, the Murphys, and the respondent, Overton Investments, with the dispute centred on a property transaction. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The Murphys sought to recover costs associated with the property transaction, which they claimed were not properly accounted for by Overton Investments. The matter was appealed to the Court of Appeal, which considered the appeal and a cross-appeal from both parties.
The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the trial judge's decision to award costs to the Murphys in the amount of $100,000 was reasonable, given the circumstances of the case. The Court of Appeal needed to determine whether the trial judge had correctly exercised his discretion in awarding costs and whether there was any error in law that warranted a different outcome. The Court also needed to consider whether the Murphys were entitled to additional costs in relation to the cross-appeal.
The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge had exercised his discretion in awarding costs appropriately, but that the amount awarded was excessive. The Court considered that the Murphys were entitled to some costs, but that the amount should be reduced to fifty per cent of the costs claimed. The Court also found that the Murphys were entitled to costs in relation to the cross-appeal. The Court ordered that Overton Investments pay fifty per cent of the Murphys' costs of the appeal and the full costs of the cross-appeal. The Court did not consider it necessary to make any further orders.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The respondent pay fifty per cent of the appellants’ costs of the appeal.
2. The respondent pay the appellants’ costs of the cross-appeal.