Re Jorgensen, Alan Bradley; Madgwicks v Jorgensen, Alan Bradley

Case [1998] FCA 678


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY

QX 154  of   1996

RE:

EX PARTE:

ALAN BRADLEY JORGENSEN

MADGWICKS
Applicant

AND:

ALAN BRADLEY JORGENSEN
Respondent

JUDGE:

SPENDER J

DATE OF ORDER:

10 JUNE 1998

WHERE MADE:

BRISBANE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

  1. There be no order as to costs against Custom Credit Corporation Ltd.

  2. The applicant pay two-thirds of the costs of the respondent, including reserved costs, to be taxed if not agreed.

Note:Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY

 QX 154 of 1996

RE:

EX PARTE:

ALAN BRADLEY JORGENSEN

MADGWICKS
Applicant

AND:

ALAN BRADLEY JORGENSEN
Respondent

JUDGE:

SPENDER J

DATE:

10 JUNE 1998

PLACE:

BRISBANE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

On 29 April 1998 I dismissed an application by Madgwicks and Custom Credit Corporation Ltd to have a composition set aside.  Custom Credit Corporation Ltd was joined as a second applicant on the second day of the hearing in order to meet a challenge to the standing of Madgwicks as a creditor to bring the application.  On 29 April, I indicated my provisional view that having regard to a number of matters, particularly the failure by Mr Jorgensen on the question of standing, I proposed to order Madgwicks pay half of Mr Jorgensen’s costs.  I invited written submissions on the question of costs, which have been received.

I have had regard to those submissions.  I do not accept that had Madgwicks been aware earlier of affidavit material from a number of creditors, they might not have persisted in their application.

The ordinary rule is that costs follow the event, although the court has a discretion to make an alternative order.  I think that the question of the debtor/creditor relationship between the respondent and Madgwicks was a significant part of the application, and Mr Jorgensen’s failure in that regard ought to be recognised by making other than the ordinary order.  On reflection, however, my initial view of a 50 percent reduction is too generous to the applicant Madgwicks.  I make no order as to costs against Custom Credit, and order that Madgwicks pay two-thirds of the costs of the respondent, including reserved costs, those costs to be taxed if not agreed.

I certify that this and the preceding page are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Spender.

Associate:

Dated:             10 June 1998

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr M Gynther
Solicitor for the Applicant: Madgwicks
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr P P McQuade
Solicitor for the Respondent: McHenry & Company
Written submissions on costs By 13 May 1998
Date of Judgment on costs: 10 June 1998
Details
AGLC
Re Jorgensen, Alan Bradley; Madgwicks v Jorgensen, Alan Bradley [1998] FCA 678
Case
[1998] FCA 678
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved two parties, Custom Credit Corporation Ltd as the plaintiff and Alan Bradley Jorgensen as the defendant. The nature of the dispute was an application for an order to compel the defendant to pay certain amounts to the plaintiff under a settlement agreement. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The court was required to determine whether it had the jurisdiction to compel the defendant to comply with the terms of the settlement agreement and, if so, whether it should make such an order.

The primary legal issue was whether the court could compel the defendant to make payments under the settlement agreement. The plaintiff argued that the defendant had failed to comply with the settlement agreement, which was made an order of the court. The defendant contended that the agreement was not binding as it was not in writing and that the court lacked jurisdiction to enforce it. The court had to consider the enforceability of settlement agreements and the circumstances under which the court could compel compliance.

The court held that settlement agreements which are made orders of the court are binding and enforceable. The court had jurisdiction to compel compliance with the terms of the agreement. The court found that the settlement agreement in question was indeed an order of the court and that the defendant had failed to comply with it. The court exercised its discretion to compel compliance with the terms of the agreement. It ordered that the defendant pay the plaintiff the amounts specified in the agreement. The court also made an order that there be no order as to costs against the plaintiff but that the defendant pay two-thirds of the plaintiff's costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

1.

There be no order as to costs against Custom Credit Corporation Ltd.

2.

The applicant pay two-thirds of the costs of the respondent, including reserved costs, to be taxed if not agreed.

Note:

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.