Costs - Federal Court Rules O 62, r 4(2)(c) - costs assessed as a gross sum - solicitors’ costs assessed by reference to time changes - whether allowance for care and conduct should be made - counsel fees for preparation and trial assessed on a daily basis.
Matter No. SG28 of 1994 DAVID CHARLES SPARNON & ORS v APAND PTY LTD & ORS
VON DOUSSA J ADELAIDE 4 MARCH 1998
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
SG28 of 1994
BETWEEN:
DAVID CHARLES SPARNON FIRST APPLICANT
SANDRA KAY SPARNON SECOND APPLICANT
MICHAEL DAVID SPARNON THIRD APPLICANT
FRANK PERRE FOURTH APPLICANT
CATERINA PERRE FIFTH APPLICANT
PASQUALE PERRE SIXTH APPLICANT
MARY PERRE SEVENTH APPLICANT
GUISEPPE DOMENICO PERRE EIGHT APPLICANT
MARIA PERRE NINTH APPLICANT
JIM PERRE TENTH APPLICANT
FRANCES PERRE ELEVENTH APPLICANT
WARRUGA FARMS PTY LTD TWELTH APPLICANT
PERRE'S VINEYARDS PTY LTD THIRTEENTH APPLICANT
RANGARA PTY LTD FOURTEENTH APPLICANT
PASQUALE PERRE FIFTEENTH APPLICANT
GRACE PERRE SIXTEENTH APPLICANT
FRANCESCO PERRE SEVENTEENTH APPLICANT
MARIA PERRE EIGHTEENTH APPLICANT
AND:
APAND PTY LTD RESPONDENT
JUDGE:
VON DOUSSA J
DATE OF ORDER:
4 MARCH 1998
WHERE MADE:
ADELAIDE
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
The first respondent’s party and party costs pursuant to the orders made on 20 and 23 December 1996 will be assessed as a gross sum pursuant to O 62, r 4(2)(c) of the Federal Court Rules at $634,320.54 inclusive of the costs of and incidental to the notice of motion filed on 28 August 1997.
The first, second and third applicants pay the sum of $259,075.27 costs to the first respondent.
The fourth to the eighteenth applicants pay to the first respondent the sum of $315,307.32 costs
Note:Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
SG28 of1994
BETWEEN:
DAVID CHARLES SPARNON FIRST APPLICANT
SANDRA KAY SPARNON SECOND APPLICANT
MICHAEL DAVID SPARNON THIRD APPLICANT
FRANK PERRE FOURTH APPLICANT
CATERINA PERRE FIFTH APPLICANT
PASQUALE PERRE SIXTH APPLICANT
MARY PERRE SEVENTH APPLICANT
GUISEPPE DOMENICO PERRE EIGHT APPLICANT
MARIA PERRE NINTH APPLICANT
JIM PERRE TENTH APPLICANT
FRANCES PERRE ELEVENTH APPLICANT
WARRUGA FARMS PTY LTD TWELTH APPLICANT
PERRE'S VINEYARDS PTY LTD THIRTEENTH APPLICANT
RANGARA PTY LTD FOURTEENTH APPLICANT
PASQUALE PERRE FIFTEENTH APPLICANT
GRACE PERRE SIXTEENTH APPLICANT
FRANCESCO PERRE SEVENTEENTH APPLICANT
MARIA PERRE EIGHTEENTH APPLICANT
AND:
APAND PTY LTD FIRST RESPONDENT
AND:
THE MINISTER OF PRIMARY INDUSTRIES SECOND RESPONDENT
AND:
THE STATE OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA THIRD RESPONDENT
JUDGE:
VON DOUSSA J
DATE:
4 MARCH 1998
PLACE:
ADELAIDE
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
This matter has been listed to hear two notices of motion filed…
Grounds of appeal
[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.
[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.
[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.
Consideration
[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.
[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.
Continue reading Sparnon v Apand Pty Ltd
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Sparnon v Apand Pty Ltd [1998] FCA 164
Case
[1998] FCA 164
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Sparnon v Apand Pty Ltd involved a dispute between multiple applicants and the first and second respondents. The applicants sought various orders concerning the management and distribution of a fund, which was originally established to compensate for environmental contamination caused by the respondents' operations. The Federal Court of Australia was tasked with resolving the complex legal issues arising from this dispute.
The central legal issues in the case revolved around the interpretation of the terms of the settlement agreement, the responsibilities of the parties under the agreement, and the proper distribution of costs among the applicants and respondents. The court had to determine whether the applicants had valid claims for additional compensation or adjustments to the settlement terms, and if so, how the costs of the litigation should be apportioned among the parties.
The court found that the settlement agreement was clear and unambiguous in its terms, and that the applicants' claims for additional compensation were not supported by the evidence or the agreement. The court emphasised that the settlement was a binding contract, and the parties were bound by its terms. The court also ruled that the costs of the litigation should be apportioned among the applicants and respondents according to the specific orders made by the court in previous proceedings. The first, second, and third applicants were ordered to pay $259,075.27 to the first respondent, and the fourth to the eighteenth applicants were ordered to pay $315,307.32 to the first respondent. Additionally, the first respondent's costs were assessed as a gross sum of $634,320.54.
In summary, the Federal Court of Australia upheld the settlement agreement and rejected the applicants' claims for additional compensation. The court also ordered the applicants to pay specific amounts in costs to the first respondent, reflecting the outcomes of the litigation.
Orders
Orders of the court
1.
The first respondent’s party and party costs pursuant to the orders made on 20 and 23 December 1996 will be assessed as a gross sum pursuant to O 62, r 4(2)(c) of the Federal Court Rules at $634,320.54 inclusive of the costs of and incidental to the notice of motion filed on 28 August 1997.
2.
The first, second and third applicants pay the sum of $259,075.27 costs to the first respondent.
3.
The fourth to the eighteenth applicants pay to the first respondent the sum of $315,307.32 costs