STX Pan Ocean Co Ltd v Thomson

Case [2012] FCA 662


FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

STX Pan Ocean Co Ltd v Thomson [2012] FCA 662

Citation: STX Pan Ocean Co Ltd v Thomson [2012] FCA 662
Appeal from: Thompson v STX Pan Ocean Co Ltd [2011] FMCA 575
Parties: STX PAN OCEAN CO LTD v DAVID JOHN THOMSON
File number: QUD 661 of 2011
Judge: LOGAN J
Date of judgment: 16 May 2012
Catchwords: COSTS – award of costs on an indemnity basis – bankruptcy notice – unsuccessful defence of challenge to setting aside of bankruptcy notice – whether federal magistrate erred in finding the offer of comprise was extended in a ‘Calderbank context’ and that refusal of appellant to accept offer was a sufficient foundation for awarding indemnity costs – no necessary consequence that refusal of offer of compromise results in award of indemnity costs – awarding of costs on indemnity basis by federal magistrate not an unreasonable exercise of discretion – appeal dismissed
Legislation: Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) s 41
Bankruptcy Regulations 1996 (Cth) reg 4.04
Cases cited: The Australian Steel Company (Operations) Pty Ltd v Lewis (2000) 109 FCR 33 cited
Calderbank v Calderbank [1975] 3 All ER 333 referred to
Colgate-Palmolive Company v Cussons Pty Limited (1993) 46 FCR 225 considered
Kleinwort Benson Australia Limited v Crowl (1988) 165 CLR 71 cited
Parianos v Lymlind Pty Ltd (1999) 93 FCR 191 cited
Tati v Stonewall Hotel Proprietary Limited (No 2) [2012] NSWCA 124 followed
Thompson v Stx Pan Ocean & Co Ltd [2011] FMCA 575 referred to
Thompson v Stx Pan Ocean Co Ltd (No 2) [2011] FMCA 947 referred to
Date of hearing: 16 May 2012
Place: Brisbane
Division: GENERAL DIVISION
Category: Catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 16
Counsel for the Appellant: Mr P King
Solicitor for the Appellant: Holman Fenwick Willan
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr L Jurth
Solicitor for the Respondent: Worcestor & Co

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

QUD 661 of 2011

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN:

STX PAN OCEAN CO LTD
Appellant

AND:

DAVID JOHN THOMSON
Respondent

JUDGE:

LOGAN J

DATE OF ORDER:

16 MAY 2012

WHERE MADE:

BRISBANE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The appeal is dismissed.

2.The appellant is to pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the appeal, to be taxed, if not agreed.

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


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

QUD 661 of 2011

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN:

STX PAN OCEAN CO LTD
Appellant

AND:

DAVID JOHN THOMSON
Respondent

JUDGE:

LOGAN J

DATE:

16 MAY 2012

PLACE:

BRISBANE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. The grounds of appeal are these: 

    1.The Federal Magistrates Court erred in finding that the alleged offer of compromise was “plainly extended in a Calderbank context”, and in having regard to that configuration as relevant to making an order for indemnity costs. 

    2.The Federal Magistrates Court erred in holding that a refusal…

Continue reading STX Pan Ocean Co Ltd v Thomson

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
STX Pan Ocean Co Ltd v Thomson [2012] FCA 662
Case
[2012] FCA 662
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

STX Pan Ocean Co Ltd, the appellant, challenged a decision made by a Federal Magistrate regarding the costs of a legal dispute against Thomson, the respondent. The central issue was the Federal Magistrate’s ruling on the awarding of costs on an indemnity basis, following the unsuccessful defence of a challenge to the setting aside of a bankruptcy notice. The Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia was tasked with determining whether the Federal Magistrate correctly identified the offer of compromise as being made in a Calderbank context and whether the refusal of this offer provided a sufficient basis for the award of indemnity costs.

The court had to assess the validity of the Federal Magistrate's decision in light of the legal principle that an offer of compromise made in a Calderbank context, where the offer is not accepted and the party making the offer succeeds in the litigation, may be a sufficient foundation for awarding indemnity costs. The appellant argued that the refusal of the offer of compromise did not necessarily lead to an award of indemnity costs, whereas the respondent maintained that the Federal Magistrate's decision was justified.

Upon review, the court found that the Federal Magistrate did not err in concluding that the offer of compromise was made in a Calderbank context, and the refusal of the offer was a sufficient foundation for the award of indemnity costs. The court also determined that the decision to award costs on an indemnity basis was not an unreasonable exercise of the Federal Magistrate's discretion. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the appeal, to be taxed if not agreed.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. The appellant is to pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the appeal, to be taxed, if not agreed.

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.