FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Murphy v Westpac Banking Corporation (No 2) [2015] FCA 266
Table of Corrections 29 April 2015 In the orders page for NSD 31 of 2010, in Order 7, “Orders (1), (2) and (5)” is replaced with “Order 5”. 29 April 2015 In paragraph 74, “Orders (1), (2) and (5)” is replaced with “Order 5”.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
NSD 1157 of 2009
BETWEEN: LOUISE MURPHY
ApplicantAND: WESTPAC BANKING CORPORATION
Respondent
JUDGE:
GRIFFITHS J
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Murphy v Westpac Banking Corporation (No 2) 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
- [2015] FCA 266
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court held that the apportionment of costs should be reconsidered, taking into account the offer to compromise. The court found that the offer to compromise was genuine and that it should be taken into account when determining the costs orders. The court also found that the apportionment of costs should be based on the principle of indemnity costs, which means that the losing party should pay the costs of the winning party. The court further held that the respondent was to pay 50 per cent of the applicant's costs for the period up to and including 11 am on 6 December 2011, and that the applicant was to pay the respondent's costs on an indemnity basis for the period after 11 am on 6 December 2011.
The court made several orders, including that judgment be entered for the applicant in various amounts, that all previous costs orders be vacated, and that the respondent pay 50 per cent of the applicant's costs for the period up to and including 11 am on 6 December 2011. The court also ordered that the applicant pay the respondent's costs on an indemnity basis for the period after 11 am on 6 December 2011, and that the respondent file and serve an interlocutory application seeking an order that its costs be paid in a fixed and specific sum rather than be quantified by taxation. The respondent's liability under the orders was to be offset against the applicant's liability, and the orders were to be stayed pending a further order or if the court ordered that costs be awarded on a lump sum basis. The court also granted liberty to apply on the giving of 48 hours' notice.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Judgment for the applicant in the amount of $34,000 plus interest from 14 November 2008 to 2 April 2012 in the amount of $9,758.28.
2. Vacate all previous costs orders.
3. The originating application otherwise be dismissed.
4. The respondent is to pay 50 per cent of the applicant’s costs for the period up to and including 11 am on 6 December 2011.
5. The applicant is to pay the respondent’s costs on an indemnity basis for the period after 11 am on 6 December 2011.
6. Within six weeks hereof, the respondent is to file and serve an interlocutory application seeking an order that its costs under order (5) be paid in a fixed and specific sum rather than be quantified by taxation, together with any supporting affidavits.
7. The respondent’s liability under orders (1) and (4) be offset against the applicant’s liability under order (5).
8. Liberty to apply on the giving of 48 hours’ notice.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
1. Judgment for the applicant in the amount of $67,825.57 plus interest from 11 May 2010 to 27 March 2015 in the amount of $25,025.09.
2. Vacate all previous costs orders.
3. The originating application otherwise be dismissed.
4. The respondent is to pay the applicant’s cost of and incidental to the proceedings for the period up to and including 11 am on 6 December 2011.
5. The applicant is to pay the respondent’s costs on an indemnity basis for the period from 11 am on 6 December 2011.
6. Within six weeks hereof, the respondent is to file and serve an interlocutory application seeking an order that its costs under order (5) be paid in a fixed and specific sum rather than be quantified by taxation, together with any supporting affidavits.
7. The respondent’s liability under orders (1) and (4) be offset against the applicant’s liability under order (5).
8. Orders (1) and (4) be stayed pending the earlier of a further order or if the Court orders that costs be awarded on a lump sum basis, the making of such determination.
9. Liberty to apply on the giving of 48 hours’ notice.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
1. Judgment for the applicant in the amount of $185,288.45 plus interest from 4 December 2009 to 27 March 2015 in the amount of $74,473.90.
2. Judgment for the applicant in the amount of $80,000 plus interest from 4 December 2009 to 27 March 2015 in the amount of $32,154.81.
3. Vacate all previous costs orders.
4. The originating application otherwise be dismissed.
5. The respondent is to pay the applicant’s costs of and incidental to the proceedings, to be taxed in default of agreement and subject to (6) and (7) below.
6. If the applicant proposes to seek a lump sum costs order, she should file and serve within six weeks hereof an interlocutory application and all supporting affidavits.
7. Order (5) be stayed pending the earlier of a further order or if the Court orders that costs be awarded on a lump sum basis, the making of such determination.
8. Liberty to apply on the giving of 48 hours’ notice.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
1. Judgment for the applicant in the amount of $50,000 plus interest from 14 November 2008 to 2 April 2012 in the amount of $14,350.41.
2. Judgment for the applicant in the amount of $228,337.50 plus interest from 27 February 2009 to 27 March 2015 in the amount of $105,007.89.
3. Vacate all previous costs orders.
4. The originating application otherwise be dismissed.
5. The respondent is to pay 75 per cent of the applicant’s costs of and incidental to the proceeding, to be taxed in default of agreement and subject to (6) below.
6. If the applicant proposes to seek a lump sum costs order, he should file and serve within six weeks hereof an interlocutory application and all supporting affidavits.
7. Liberty to apply on the giving of 48 hours’ notice.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
1. Judgment for the applicant in the sum of $45,000 plus interest from 14 November 2008 to 2 April 2012 in the amount of $12,915.37.
2. Vacate all previous costs orders.
3. The originating application otherwise be dismissed.
4. There be no order as to costs for the period up to and including 11 am on 13 December 2011.
5. The applicant is to pay the respondent’s costs on an indemnity basis for the period after 11 am on 13 December 2011.
6. Within six weeks hereof, the respondent is to file and serve an interlocutory application seeking an order that its costs under order (5) be paid in a fixed and specific sum rather than be quantified by taxation, together with any supporting affidavits.
7. Liberty to apply on the giving of 48 hours’ notice.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
1. The originating application be dismissed.
2. Vacate all previous costs orders.
3. There be no order as to costs for the period up to and including 11 am on 13 December 2011.
4. The applicant is to pay the respondent’s costs on an indemnity basis for the period after 11 am on 13 December 2011.
5. Within six weeks hereof, the respondent is to file and serve an interlocutory application seeking an order that its costs under order (4) be paid in a fixed and specific sum rather than be quantified by taxation, together with any supporting affidavits.
6. Liberty to apply on the giving of 48 hours’ notice.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
1. Judgment for the applicant in the sum of $42,000 plus interest from 14 November 2008 to 2 April 2012 in the amount of $12,054.34.
2. Vacate all previous costs orders.
3. The originating application otherwise be dismissed.
4. There be no order as to costs for the period up to and including 11 am on 13 December 2011.
5. The applicant is to pay the respondent’s costs on an indemnity basis for the period after 11 am on 13 December 2011.
6. Within six weeks hereof, the respondent is to file and serve an interlocutory application seeking an order that its costs under order (5) be paid in a fixed and specific sum rather than be quantified by taxation, together with any supporting affidavits.
7. Liberty to apply on the giving of 48 hours’ notice.
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.