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 4.04Cases 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 toDate 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
AppellantAND: 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
AppellantAND: DAVID JOHN THOMSON
Respondent
JUDGE:
LOGAN J
DATE:
16 MAY 2012
PLACE:
BRISBANE
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
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
- AGLC
- STX Pan Ocean Co Ltd v Thomson [2012] FCA 662
- Case
- [2012] FCA 662
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
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.