FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Perera v GetSwift Limited (No 2) [2018] FCA 909
File number: NSD 226 of 2018
NSD 440 of 2018
NSD 580 of 2018Judge: LEE J Date of judgment: 15 June 2018 Catchwords: COSTS – resolution of costs applications following orders made to permanently stay two of three representative proceedings – where orders for costs sought by respondents in respect of the resolution of a multiplicity dispute – where orders are sought by an applicant in one proceeding against a non-party to that proceeding – where orders sought in respect of the successful representative party’s application for injunctive relief against an unsuccessful representative applicant
REPRESENTATIVE PROCEEDINGS – power to award costs against group members – proper construction of s 43(1A) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth)
Legislation: Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), Pt IVA, ss 33ZF, 37M(3), 43, 43(1), 43(1A)
Federal Court Rules 2011, Div 9.2
Cases cited: Oshlack v Richmond River Council [1998] HCA 11; (1998) 193 CLR 72
Foots v Southern Cross Mine Management Pty Ltd [2007] HCA 56; (2007) 234 CLR 52
Webb v GetSwift Limited [2018] FCA 783
Perera v GetSwift Limited [2018] FCA 732
Dymocks Franchise Systems (NSW) Pty Ltd v Todd [2004] UKPC 39; [2004] 1 WLR 2807
Date of hearing: 8 June 2018 Registry: Sydney Division: General Division National Practice Area: Commercial and Corporations Sub-area: Corporations and Corporate Insolvency Category: Catchwords Number of paragraphs: 47 Counsel for the Applicant: Mr WAD Edwards Solicitor for the Applicant: Squire Patton Boggs Counsel for the Respondents: Mr M Darke SC and Mr A Shearer Solicitor for the Respondents: Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan Counsel for the Applicants in NSD440/2018: Mr G Rich SC and Dr B Kremer Solicitor for the Applicants in NSD440/2018: Corrs Chambers Westgarth Counsel for the Applicant in NSD580/2018: Mr D Collins QC and Ms J McDonald Solicitor for the Applicant in NSD580/2018: Phi Finney McDonald ORDERS
NSD 226 of 2018 BETWEEN: DWAYNE CAVAN SHANAHAN PERERA
Applicant
AND: GETSWIFT LIMITED
First Respondent
JOEL MACDONALD
Second Respondent
JUDGE:
LEE J
DATE OF ORDER:
15 JUNE 2018
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.By 9 am on 19 June 2018, the parties provide to the Associate to Justice Lee orders reflecting these reasons together with such other orders arising from the case management hearing in proceedings NSD 580 of 2018 on 15 June 2018.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
ORDERS
NSD 440 of 2018 BETWEEN: SHAUN MCTAGGART
First Applicant
SAMANTHA MCTAGGART
Second ApplicantAND: GETSWIFT LTD
First Respondent
JOEL MACDONALD
Second Respondent
BANE HUNTER
Third Respondent
JUDGE:
LEE J
DATE OF ORDER:
15 JUNE 2018
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.By 9 am on 19 June 2018, the parties provide to the Associate to Justice Lee orders reflecting these reasons together with such other orders arising from the case management hearing in proceedings NSD 580 of 2018 on 15 June 2018.
Note: Entry…
Continue reading Perera v GetSwift Limited (No 2)
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Perera v GetSwift Limited (No 2) [2018] FCA 909
- Case
- [2018] FCA 909
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court included the proper construction of section 43(1A) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) in relation to awarding costs against group members in representative proceedings, and the application of the usual rule that costs follow the event. The court considered whether the respondents should be exposed to the costs of an inter se fight between the applicants, given that the multiplicity of proceedings had caused vexation and oppression to the respondents. The court also considered whether an order for costs could be made against a non-party to a proceeding, and whether an order for costs could be made in respect of an unsuccessful application for injunctive relief.
The court determined that the usual rule that costs follow the event should apply, and that the respondents should not bear the costs of the inter se dispute between the applicants. The court held that an order for costs could be made against a non-party to a proceeding, and that an order for costs could be made in respect of an unsuccessful application for injunctive relief. The court also held that section 43(1A) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) allowed for the award of costs against group members in representative proceedings.
ORDERS:
The court ordered that the parties provide orders reflecting these reasons by a specified date, and that the orders be entered in accordance with Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. By 9 am on 19 June 2018, the parties provide to the Associate to Justice Lee orders reflecting these reasons together with such other orders arising from the case management hearing in this proceeding on 15 June 2018.
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
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.