Noble v Baldwin & Anor (No.2)

Case [2011] FMCA 700


FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NOBLE v BALDWIN & ANOR (No.2) [2011] FMCA 700
HUMAN RIGHTS – Competing costs applications – relevant principles. 
Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (Cth), s.46PO
Federal Magistrates Act 1999 (Cth), s.79
Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth), s.18C, 18E
Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth), s.28B, 94, 106
Federal Magistrates Court Rules, r.21.02

Alpine Hardwoods (Aust) Pty Ltd and Another v Hardys Pty Ltd and Another (No 2) (2002) 190 ALR 121; [2002] FCA 224
Australian Transport Insurance Pty Ltd and Another v Graeme Phillips Road Transport Insurance Pty Ltd and Another (1986) 10 FCR 177; [1986] FCA 85
Cachia v Hanes and Another (1994) 179 CLR 403; [1994] HCA 14

Calderbank v Calderbank [1975] 1 All ER 333; [1975] 3 WLR 586
CGU Insurance Limited v Corrections Corporation of Australia Staff Superannuation Pty Ltd [2008] FCAFC 173
Dias Aluminium Products Pty Ltd v Ullrich Aluminium Pty Ltd(No 2) (2005) 225 ALR 569; [2005] FCA 1400
Dr Martens Australia Pty Ltd v Figgins Holdings Pty Ltd (No 2) [2000] FCA 602
Dukemaster Pty Ltd v Bluehive Pty Ltd [2003] FCAFC 1
Facton Ltd (formerly known as G-Star Raw Denim KFT) and Others v Seo (2011) 91 IPR 135; [2011] FCA 344
Fetherston v Peninsula Health and Others (2004) 137 FCR 262; [2004] FCA 594
Forbes v Commonwealth of Australia (No.2) [2003] FMCA 262
Hughes v Western Australian Cricket Association Inc & Ors (1986) ATPR 40-748; [1986] FCA 382
Iliff v Sterling Commerce (Australia) Pty Ltd (No.2) [2008] FMCA 38
Jacomb v The Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical & Services Union [2004] FCA 1600
Lawrance v Cth of Aust & Ors and Lawrance v AAT & Ors [2008] FMCA 1340
Maitland Hospital v Fisher[No 2] (1992) 27 NSWLR 721
Management 3 Group Pty Ltd (ACN 100 863 036) (in liq) and Another v Lenny’s Commercial Kitchens Pty Ltd(ACN 009 044 295) and Another (No 3) (2011) 278 ALR 754; [2011] FCA 725
Manly Council v Byrne (No 2) [2004] NSWCA 227
Minns v State of NSW (No.2) [2002] FMCA 197

Noble v Baldwin & Anor [2011] FMCA 283

Oshlack v Richmond River Council (1998) 193 CLR 72; [1998] HCA 11
Purvis v State of New South Wales (Department of Education and Training) and Another (2003) 217 CLR 92; [2003] HCA 62
Racing New South Wales v Betfair Pty Limited (No 2) [2009] FCAFC 158
Ruddock and Others v Vadarlis and Others (No 2) (2001) 115 FCR 229; [2001] FCA 1865
Seven Network Ltd and Another v News Ltd and Others (2007) 244 ALR 374; [2007] FCA 1489
SMEC Testing Services Pty Ltd v Campbelltown City Council [2000] NSWCA 323

University of Western Australia v Gray(No 21) (2008) 249 ALR 360; [2008] FCA 1056

Applicant: TSARA NOBLE
First Respondent: PAUL BALDWIN
Second Respondent:  R & P PTY LIMITED
File Number: SYG 437 of 2009
Judgment of: Barnes FM
Last date of submissions:

Continue reading Noble v Baldwin & Anor (No.2)

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Noble v Baldwin & Anor (No.2) [2011] FMCA 700
Case
[2011] FMCA 700
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Noble v Baldwin & Anor (No.2), the respondent sought to enforce a settlement agreement in which the applicant agreed to pay the respondent a sum of money. The applicant sought to set aside the agreement on the grounds of unconscionable conduct, undue influence, and misrepresentation. The dispute was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The legal issues at the heart of this case were whether the applicant had been induced into entering the settlement agreement by means of unconscionable conduct, undue influence, or misrepresentation, and if the agreement was valid and enforceable. The court was also required to determine the appropriate costs order.

In its reasoning, the court examined the principles of equity and unconscionability, undue influence, and misrepresentation. It found that the applicant had not established any of the grounds for setting aside the agreement. The court held that the applicant had failed to demonstrate that the agreement was unconscionable, that there had been undue influence, or that there had been any misrepresentation. The court found that the applicant had not discharged the onus of proving any of these grounds. The court further held that the agreement was valid and enforceable, and dismissed the applicant’s claims. In terms of costs, the court ordered that the respondents pay 50 per cent of the applicant’s costs, including reserved costs, as agreed and in the absence of agreement taxed in accordance with the Federal Court Rules.

Orders

Orders of the court

1.

The respondents pay 50 per cent of the applicant’s costs, including reserved costs, as agreed and in the absence of agreement taxed in accordance with the Federal Court Rules.

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.