Robinson v Kenny (No 2)

Case [2015] FCA 2


FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Robinson v Kenny (No 2) [2015] FCA 2

Citation: Robinson v Kenny (No 2) [2015] FCA 2
Parties: GRAHAM BRUCE ROBINSON v BRIAN KENNY and ABK AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED (ACN 111 306 999)
File number: NSD 238 of 2010
Judge: FARRELL J
Date of judgment: 7 January 2015
Catchwords: COSTS – calculation of costs – interest – circumstances where lump sum appropriate in lieu of interest – indemnity costs – offer of compromise – rebuttable presumption in favour of the award of indemnity costs – whether presumption rebutted – entitlement to costs thrown away
Legislation: Fair Trading Act 1987 (NSW)
Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth)
Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth)
Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth)
Cases cited: Calderbank v Calderbank [1975] 3 All ER 333
Futuretronics.com.au Pty Ltd v Graphix Labels Pty Ltd [2009] FCAFC 40
IFTC Broking Services Limited v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (2010) 268 ALR 1
Merost Pty Ltd v CPT Custodian Pty Ltd (No 2) [2014] FCA 594
Port Kembla Coal Terminal Ltd v Braverus Maritime Inc (No 2) (2004) 212 ALR 281
Robinson v Kenny [2014] FCA 988
Date of hearing: 23 December 2014
Date of last submissions: 23 December 2014
Place: Sydney
Division: GENERAL DIVISION
Category: Catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 29
Counsel for the Applicant: Mr A Crossland
Solicitor for the Applicant: Attwood Marshall Lawyers
Counsel for the Respondents: Mr J Sheller
Solicitor for the Respondents: Gilchrist Connell

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

NSD 238 of 2010

BETWEEN:

GRAHAM BRUCE ROBINSON
Applicant

AND:

BRIAN KENNY
First Respondent

ABK AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED (ACN 111 306 999)
Second Respondent

JUDGE:

FARRELL J

DATE OF ORDER:

7 JANUARY 2015

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.Judgment for the applicant as against the first and second respondents for the amount of $3,490,132.56 inclusive of a lump sum in lieu of interest.

2.The applicant pay the first and second respondents’ costs thrown away on claims abandoned on 11 March 2013.

3.Except as provided in order 2, the first and second respondents pay the applicant’s costs of the proceeding as agreed or taxed on a party and party basis for those costs incurred up to 11 am on the second business day after 2 August 2012 and thereafter on an indemnity basis.

Note:    Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

NSD 238 of 2010

BETWEEN:

GRAHAM BRUCE ROBINSON
Applicant

AND:

BRIAN KENNY
First Respondent

ABK AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED (ACN 111 306 999)
Second Respondent

JUDGE:

FARRELL J

DATE:

7 JANUARY 2015

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. On 26 September 2014, I delivered judgment in Robinson v Kenny [2014] FCA 988 (Reasons). Terms defined in the Reasons have the same meaning in these reasons unless otherwise indicated.

  2. I determined that Mr Robinson was successful in the Building Cost Representation and…

Continue reading Robinson v Kenny (No 2)

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Robinson v Kenny (No 2) [2015] FCA 2
Case
[2015] FCA 2
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Robinson v Kenny (No 2) involved the applicant, Robinson, seeking costs from the first and second respondents. The central dispute centred around the calculation of costs, including interest, and the entitlement to indemnity costs. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The respondents had abandoned certain claims on 11 March 2013, leading to the applicant's request for costs incurred up to that date, along with interest and indemnity costs.

The primary legal issues before the court were the appropriate method of calculating costs, particularly whether a lump sum should be awarded in lieu of interest, and whether the presumption in favour of awarding indemnity costs should be rebutted. The court had to determine whether the respondents' conduct justified the presumption in favour of indemnity costs being overturned. Additionally, the court examined the appropriate basis for awarding costs thrown away due to the respondents abandoning certain claims.

The court held that a lump sum was an appropriate substitute for interest, considering the circumstances of the case. The court also ruled that the presumption in favour of awarding indemnity costs was not rebutted, as the respondents' conduct did not warrant such a departure from the usual rule. Therefore, the respondents were liable for the applicant's costs on an indemnity basis, except for the costs thrown away due to the abandonment of claims, which the applicant had to bear. The court made orders for judgment in favour of the applicant, specifying the amount owed, and outlined the basis for the costs to be paid by the parties.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Judgment for the applicant as against the first and second respondents for the amount of $3,490,132.56 inclusive of a lump sum in lieu of interest.

2. The applicant pay the first and second respondents’ costs thrown away on claims abandoned on 11 March 2013.

3. Except as provided in order 2, the first and second respondents pay the applicant’s costs of the proceeding as agreed or taxed on a party and party basis for those costs incurred up to 11 am on the second business day after 2 August 2012 and thereafter on an indemnity basis.

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.