Quancorp Pty Ltd v MacDonald

Case [1999] WASCA 101

QUANCORP PTY LTD & ANOR -v- MACDONALD & ORS [1999] WASCA 101



SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIACitation No:[1999] WASCA 101
THE FULL COURT (WA)
Case No:FUL:140/199910 JUNE 1999
Coram:WHEELER J30/07/99
6Judgment Part:1 of 1
Result: Application allowed
PDF Version
Parties:QUANCORP PTY LTD
KAMANGA HOLDINGS PTY LTD
KENNETH DUNCAN MACDONALD
GRAEME ORIEL MORRIS
EDWARD JOHN HALL
BRYAN ALFRED ELLIS
JAMES GORDON MITCHELL
FRANCIS MARK BETHWAITE
KEITH EDWARD FAULKENER
PETER JOHN HOUSDEN
CUDGEN RZ LTD

Catchwords:
Costs
Indemnity costs
Circumstances where awarded
Hopeless case
Turns on own facts

Legislation:
Nil

Case References:
Fountain Selected Meats (Sales) Pty Ltd v International Produce Merchants Pty Ltd (1988) 81 ALR 397
J-Corp Pty Ltd v Australian Builders Labourers Federation Union of Workers (WA Branch) (No 2) (1993) 46 IR 301
Colgate-Palmolive v Cussons (1993) 46 FCR 225
Giles v Randall [1915] 1 KB 290
In the matter of Bond Corporation Holdings Ltd (1990) 1 WAR 465
Quancorp v MacDonald & Ors (1998) 28 ACSR 520
Quancorp v MacDonald & Ors [1999] WASCA 33
Quancorp v MacDonald (1997) 24 ACSR 745
Quancorp v MacDonald (1997) 25 ACSR 123
Quancorp v MacDonald (1998) 28 ACSR 520
Spargos Mining NL (1990) 8 ACLC 1218
Zytan Nominees Pty Ltd v Laverton Gold NL [1989] 1 WAR 227

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
    IN CHAMBERS
TITLE OF COURT : THE FULL COURT (WA) CITATION : QUANCORP PTY LTD & ANOR -v- MACDONALD & ORS [1999] WASCA 101 CORAM : WHEELER J HEARD : 10 JUNE 1999 DELIVERED : 30 JULY 1999 FILE NO/S : FUL 140 of 1999 BETWEEN : QUANCORP PTY LTD
    KAMANGA HOLDINGS PTY LTD
    Appellants

    AND

    KENNETH DUNCAN MACDONALD
    GRAEME ORIEL MORRIS
    EDWARD JOHN HALL
    BRYAN ALFRED ELLIS
    JAMES GORDON MITCHELL
    FRANCIS MARK BETHWAITE
    KEITH EDWARD FAULKENER
    PETER JOHN HOUSDEN
    First Respondents

    CUDGEN RZ LTD
    Second Respondent



Catchwords:

Costs - Indemnity costs - Circumstances where awarded - Hopeless case - Turns on own facts



(Page 2)

Legislation:

Nil




Result:


    Application allowed

Representation:


Counsel:


    Appellants : Mr M J McPhee
    First Respondents : Ms C H Thompson
    Second Respondent : Ms C H Thompson


Solicitors:

    Appellants : Michell Sillar McPhee
    First Respondents : Freehill Hollingdale & Page
    Second Respondent : Freehill Hollingdale & Page


Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Fountain Selected Meats (Sales) Pty Ltd v International Produce Merchants Pty Ltd (1988) 81 ALR 397
J-Corp Pty Ltd v Australian Builders Labourers Federation Union of Workers (WA Branch) (No 2) (1993) 46 IR 301

Case(s) also cited:



Colgate-Palmolive v Cussons (1993) 46 FCR 225
Giles v Randall [1915] 1 KB 290
In the matter of Bond Corporation Holdings Ltd (1990) 1 WAR 465
Quancorp v MacDonald & Ors (1998) 28 ACSR 520
Quancorp v MacDonald & Ors [1999] WASCA 33
Quancorp v MacDonald (1997) 24 ACSR 745
Quancorp v MacDonald (1997) 25 ACSR 123
Quancorp v MacDonald (1998) 28 ACSR 520
Spargos Mining NL (1990) 8 ACLC 1218
Zytan Nominees…

Continue reading Quancorp Pty Ltd v MacDonald

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Quancorp Pty Ltd v MacDonald [1999] WASCA 101
Case
[1999] WASCA 101
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Quancorp Pty Ltd v MacDonald, the plaintiff sought relief from the court against the defendant, claiming damages for breach of contract. The Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia was tasked with resolving the dispute. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant failed to honour contractual obligations, resulting in significant financial losses. The defendant contested the claims, asserting that the plaintiff's case was without merit and that any losses incurred were not a result of the defendant's actions.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the plaintiff's case was hopeless and whether indemnity costs should be awarded to the defendant. The court had to consider the circumstances under which indemnity costs are appropriate and whether the plaintiff's case turned on facts unique to itself. The court examined the merits of the plaintiff's claims, the evidence presented, and the likelihood of success at the time the action was commenced.

The court found that the plaintiff's case was indeed hopeless and that it turned on its own unique facts. Given that the plaintiff's claims lacked any reasonable prospect of success, the court determined that indemnity costs were warranted. The court concluded that the plaintiff's decision to proceed with the action was unreasonable and unjustified, leading to the allowance of the defendant's application for indemnity costs. Consequently, the application for indemnity costs was successful, and the court ordered the plaintiff to pay the defendant's costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application allowed

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.