Tour Squad Pty Ltd v Fifth Amendment Entertainment Inc

Link copied
Case Copied 8 min read

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Tour Squad Pty Ltd v Fifth Amendment Entertainment Inc [2020] FCA 1649

File number: QUD 44 of 2020
Judgment of: DERRINGTON J
Date of judgment: 11 November 2020
Catchwords: COSTS – application for costs of an interlocutory application be taxed immediately – departure from usual rule under r 40.13 of the Federal Court Rules 2011  – unreasonable conduct of respondents in failing to comply with directions for filing of defence – finalisation of the proceedings likely protracted – appropriate to exercise discretion to order costs be taxed immediately
Legislation: Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) rr 4.05, 40.13
Cases cited:

Australian Mud Company Pty Ltd v Coretell Pty Ltd (No 4) [2013] FCA 567

Axent Holdings Pty Ltd v Compusign Australia Pty Ltd (No 3) [2018] FCA 6

Courtney v Medtel Pty Ltd (No 3) [2004] FCA 347

Fiduciary Ltd v Morningstar Research Pty Ltd (2002) 55 NSWLR 1

Hill v Zhang (No 2) [2019] FCA 1649

Horrobin v Australia & New Zealand Banking Group Ltd (unreported, New South Wales Court of Appeal, Priestly JA, 6 June 1997)

Lynx Engineering Consultants Pty Ltd v The ANI Corporation Ltd (t/as ANI Bradken Rail Transportation Group) (No 3) [2010] FCA 32

QS Holdings Sarl v Paul’s Retail Pty Ltd (No 2) [2011] FCA 1038

Richmond v Ora Gold Limited [2020] FCA 70

Telstra Corporation Ltd v Phone Directories Company Pty Ltd (No 3) [2014] FCA 949
Division: General Division
Registry: Queensland
National Practice Area: Commercial and Corporations
Sub-area: Commercial Contracts, Banking, Finance and Insurance
Number of paragraphs: 19
Date of hearing: 11 November 2020
Counsel for the Applicant: Mr R Green
Solicitor for the Applicant: Entertainment Law & Consultancy Co
Solicitor for the Respondents: Mr M Dillman of MacPherson Kelley

ORDERS

QUD 44 of 2020
BETWEEN:

TOUR SQUAD PTY LTD

Applicant
AND:

FIFTH AMENDMENT ENTERTAINMENT INC

First Respondent

CASH JONES

Second Respondent

JAYCEON TERRELL TAYLOR

Third Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

DERRINGTON J

DATE OF ORDER:

11 NOVEMBER 2020

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The applicant’s costs of the interlocutory application filed on 22 September 2020, including the costs of seeking the making of this order, be taxed forthwith.

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


REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

DERRINGTON J:

Introduction

  1. This is an application for the costs ordered against the respondents on 25 September 2020 to be taxed prior to the finalisation of the proceedings, contrary to the usual rule under r 40.13 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) (the Rules).

    Background

  2. The applicant company conducts business as a promoter and facilitator of music entertainment in Australia and New Zealand.  The first respondent, Fifth Amendment Entertainment Inc (Fifth Amendment), is also in the business of promoting musical entertainment.  The second respondent, Mr Jones, is the president and owner of Fifth Amendment.  The third respondent, Mr Taylor (who performs under the pseudonym of “The Game”), is an American rap artist of some notoriety.  Fifth Amendments and Mr Jones are…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Tour Squad Pty Ltd v Fifth Amendment Entertainment Inc and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2020] FCA 1649
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Tour Squad Pty Ltd v Fifth Amendment Entertainment Inc concerns an application by the applicant for costs incurred in an interlocutory application to be taxed prior to the finalisation of the proceedings. The applicant, Tour Squad Pty Ltd, is a company that promotes and facilitates music entertainment events in Australia and New Zealand. The respondents, Fifth Amendment Entertainment Inc, Mr Jones, and Mr Taylor, are involved in similar activities in the United States and were alleged to have breached a tour agreement by failing to appear at seven concerts arranged by the applicant. The respondents were served with the proceedings, but their conduct in the litigation has been problematic, including a failure to file a defence within the required time and difficulties with their legal representation.

The legal issue before the court was whether the costs of the interlocutory application, which the respondents were ordered to pay, should be taxed immediately, contrary to the usual rule under Rule 40.13 of the Federal Court Rules 2011. This rule generally requires that costs on an interlocutory application not be taxed until the proceeding is finished. However, the court has discretion to order costs be taxed immediately in certain circumstances, such as where there has been unreasonable conduct by the party against whom costs are ordered or where there is a significant delay in the conclusion of the matter.

The court found that the respondents' conduct in this case warranted an immediate taxation of costs. The respondents failed to file a defence within the time specified and only did so the day before the hearing of the application for default judgment. There was no adequate explanation for this delay, which indicates a failure to act in accordance with the modern approach to case management. Additionally, given the history of delays in this case and the fact that it is unlikely to conclude within the next 12 months, the court found it appropriate to exercise its discretion to order that the costs be taxed immediately.

In conclusion, the court made an order that the applicant's costs of the interlocutory application, including the costs of seeking the order, be taxed forthwith. This decision recognises the unreasonable conduct of the respondents and the likelihood of further delay in the proceedings, which justified an immediate taxation of costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The applicant’s costs of the interlocutory application filed on 22 September 2020, including the costs of seeking the making of this order, be taxed forthwith.

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

Background

Background to the litigation

This is an application for the costs ordered against the respondents on 25 September 2020 to be taxed prior to the finalisation of the proceedings, contrary to the usual rule under r 40.13 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) (the Rules). Background The applicant company conducts business as a promoter and facilitator of music entertainment in Australia and New Zealand. The first respondent, Fifth Amendment Entertainment Inc (Fifth Amendment), is also in the business of promoting musical entertainment. The second respondent, Mr Jones, is the president and owner of Fifth Amendment. The third respondent, Mr Taylor (who performs under the pseudonym of “The Game”), is an American rap artist of some notoriety. Fifth Amendments and Mr Jones are Mr Taylor’s agents. The applicant commenced these proceedings on 19 February 2020. In short, it was alleged that Mr Jones breached the terms of a tour agreement entered into with the applicant, in failing to appear at seven concerts arranged by the applicant in Australia and New Zealand. The respondents are all located in the United States of America. Although the pandemic complicated matters, the evidence establishes that each of the three respondents was appropriately served. On 19 August 2020, the firm of solicitors Macpherson Kelley Pty Ltd (Macpherson Kelley) filed a notice of acting in respect of each of the respondents. It appears that Macpherson Kelley encountered difficulties in obtaining instructions from the respondents and on 16 September 2020 purported to file a notice of ceasing to act. That notice was not in the correct form, as required by r 4.05 of the Rules, and was therefore ineffective. On 23 July 2020, this Court made orders requiring the respondents to file and serve their defences on the applicant by 20 August 2020. As no defences were filed by that time, the applicant filed an application for default judgment on 21 September 2020 and served it on Macpherson Kelley as the solicitors on the record. The interlocutory application was listed for hearing on 25 September 2020. On 24 September 2020, the respondents filed their defence. As accepted by the applicants, this necessitated the dismissal of the application for default judgment. The respondents were ordered to pay the applicant’s costs of that application. The applicant now applies for those costs to be taxed prior to the finalisation of the proceedings.The law Rule 40.13 of the Rules provides:If an order for costs is made on an interlocutory application, the party in whose favour the order is made must not tax those costs until the proceeding in which the order is made is finished. This rule recognises that it is usually inappropriate to require the unsuccessful party in an interlocutory application to pay costs immediately as they might ultimately succeed in the substantive proceeding: Australian Mud Company Pty Ltd v Coretell Pty Ltd (No 4) [2013] FCA 567 [29]; Telstra Corporation Ltd v Phone Directories Company Pty Ltd (No 3) [2014] FCA 949 [29]. Further, the rule is designed to avoid the inconvenience and potential injustice caused by a series of successive taxations following interlocutory applications: Courtney v Medtel Pty Ltd (No 3) [2004] FCA 347 [20].

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Mr Dillman, who appeared on behalf of the respondents, was unable, due to a lack of instruction, to provide any submissions as to why the orders sought by the applicant should not be made. It ought be noted that nothing that is said in these reasons ought to cast any doubt on the professionalism of Mr Dillman or his firm. It is obvious that Mr Dillman has attempted to act on the instructions which he has been able to obtain, and the evidence to date in this matter suggests that the difficulties have arisen as a result of his clients’ actions, rather than that of his solicitors. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons I am satisfied that the costs of the interlocutory application for default judgment, ordered to be paid by the respondent on 25 September 2020, should be taxed immediately. I make orders accordingly.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

The applicants further submit that the conduct of the respondents in relation to service, their purported withdrawal of representation, and their failure to comply with case management directions in a timely fashion are significant because they indicate a failure to act reasonably, and suggest the litigation will be attenuated by delay. The applicants submit these are both factors which indicate it would be in the interests of justice to order the costs of the interlocutory application be taxed immediately. The applicants further contend that the absence of any security for costs, and the fact that the respondents are conducting the litigation from a foreign jurisdiction, both support this conclusion.ConsiderationReasonableness of the respondents’ conduct Consistent with the applicant’s submissions, a factor which may incline the Court to order that costs on an interlocutory application be taxed immediately is some unreasonable conduct on the part of the party against whom costs have been ordered: Fiduciary Ltd v Morningstar Research Pty Ltd (2002) 55 NSWLR 1 (Morningstar) [12]. In this way, an order for costs to be payable immediately may be used to discourage interlocutory disputation and conduct inconsistent with the overarching requirement for parties to act in accordance with ss 37M and 37N of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth). As further explained by Colvin J in Richmond v Ora Gold Limited [2020] FCA 70 at [37]:[T]he references in the cases as to unreasonableness as a basis for exercising the discretion to order that costs thrown away be assessed and paid forthwith are intended to capture those cases where there has been a relatively serious failure to observe the approach to the bringing or contesting of interlocutory applications that may be expected to be adopted in accordance with the modern approach to case management. Here, the respondents failed to file a defence within the time specified in the orders made on 23 July 2020, namely by 20 August 2020. They only filed it on 24 September 2020, less than a day before the hearing of the applicant’s application for default judgment. There has been no adequate explanation for that conduct. In these circumstances, the respondents have failed to act in accordance with the modern approach to case management, a factor which weighs in favour of granting the applicant’s application for costs to be taxed immediately.Uncertainty and delay in the conclusion of the matter Another factor relevant to the exercise of the discretion is whether a party will not have the benefit of an award of costs for a considerable period of time: Hill v Zhang (No 2) [2019] FCA 1649 [11]. Where the controversy is likely to run for at least a further 12 months, this delay is sufficient to warrant an order that costs be taxed forthwith: Morningstar; Horrobin v Australia & New Zealand Banking Group Ltd (unreported, New South Wales Court of Appeal, Priestly JA, 6 June 1997). In the circumstances of this case, it is not unreasonable to predict that these proceedings are unlikely to conclude within the next 12 months, particularly in light of the delays occasioned by the respondents’ conduct to date. This is another factor which weighs significantly in favour of exercising the discretion in favour of the applicants.Other factors