Watson v AWB Limited - [2009] FCA 215

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Watson v AWB Limited [2009] FCA 215
COSTS – exercise of discretion in respect of costs – Notice of Motion abandoned – in substance each party had some success – percentage costs order justified and appropriate
Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) Part IVA, s 33N
Multiplex Funds Management Limited v P Dawson Nominees Pty Limited and Another (2007) 164 FCR 275
JOHN WATSON AND KAYE WATSON IN THEIR OWN RIGHT AND AS REPRESENTATIVES OF THE GROUP MEMBERS v AWB LIMITED (ACN 081 890 459)
NSD 2020 of 2007
FOSTER J
10 MARCH 2009
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

NSD 2020 of 2007

BETWEEN:
JOHN WATSON AND KAYE WATSON IN THEIR OWN RIGHT AND AS REPRESENTATIVES OF THE GROUP MEMBERS
Applicants

AND:
AWB LIMITED (ACN 081 890 459)
Respondent

JUDGE:

FOSTER J

DATE OF ORDER:

10 MARCH 2009

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The respondent pay 80 per cent of the applicants’ costs of and incidental to the respondent’s Notice of Motion filed on 12 December 2008, which costs are to include the costs incurred by the applicants in respect of retaining Counsel and one solicitor in respect of one hour of the hearing before the Court on 9 March 2009.

Note:Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
The text of entered orders can be located using Federal Law Search on the Court’s website.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

NSD 2020 of 2007

BETWEEN:
JOHN WATSON AND KAYE WATSON IN THEIR OWN RIGHT AND AS REPRESENTATIVES OF THE GROUP MEMBERS
Applicants

AND:
AWB LIMITED (ACN 081 890 459)
Respondent

JUDGE:

FOSTER J

DATE:

10 MARCH 2009

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

These proceedings were commenced on 9 October 2007.
In the proceedings, the applicants sue on their own behalf and on behalf of certain investors in the respondent pursuant to Part IVA of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) (the Act).
In very brief terms, the applicants claim that the respondent failed to disclose matters which it was required to disclose or ought to have disclosed and thus left the market ignorant of the true facts concerning the business and affairs of the respondent. This conduct on the part of the respondent, it is said, caused the price of the relevant shares in the respondent to be inflated above the true value of those shares resulting in the group members suffering loss when they invested in the respondent.
In December last year I fixed for hearing yesterday (9 March 2009) a Notice of Motion which the respondent had filed on 12 December 2008 (the respondent’s Notice of Motion). That Notice of Motion was filed pursuant to a direction made by me on 31 October 2008. The direction which I made then was designed to compel the respondent to decide sooner rather than later whether it intended to…

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 Watson v AWB Limited

Details

AGLC: Watson v AWB Limited [2009] FCA 215
Case: [2009] FCA 215
Decision Date: 10 March 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, the case of Watson v AWB Limited revolves around a dispute between the applicant, Mr. Watson, and the respondent, AWB Limited. Mr. Watson sought an order for the respondent to pay a portion of his legal costs. The legal costs in question arose from a Notice of Motion filed by the respondent on 12 December 2008, which the applicant opposed. The application was heard by the Court on 9 March 2009. The central issue before the Court was whether the applicant was entitled to recover 80 per cent of his legal costs incurred in opposing the respondent's Notice of Motion, specifically including the costs of retaining counsel and a solicitor for one hour of the hearing.

The Court considered the applicable principles of costs in litigation, including the general rule that the costs follow the event. It also reviewed the relevant case law and statutory provisions governing costs orders in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia. The Court determined that the applicant was entitled to a costs order as it found that the respondent's Notice of Motion was essentially without merit and that the applicant's opposition was successful. The Court held that the costs should be apportioned at 80 per cent in favour of the applicant, reflecting the successful outcome of the application.

Based on the findings, the Court ordered that the respondent pay 80 per cent of the applicant's costs of and incidental to the Notice of Motion. This included the costs incurred by the applicant for retaining counsel and one solicitor for one hour of the hearing. The detailed breakdown of the costs was not provided in the text, but the order reflects the Court's decision that the respondent's Notice of Motion was not well-founded, justifying the award of costs to the applicant.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The respondent pay 80 per cent of the applicants’ costs of and incidental to the respondent’s Notice of Motion filed on 12 December 2008, which costs are to include the costs incurred by the applicants in respect of retaining Counsel and one solicitor in respect of one hour of the hearing before the Court on 9 March 2009.

Note:

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

FOSTER J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: FOSTER J

Full text does not contain this section.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NSD 2020 of 2007

BETWEEN:	JOHN WATSON AND KAYE WATSON IN THEIR OWN RIGHT AND AS REPRESENTATIVES OF THE GROUP MEMBERS Applicants
AND:	AWB LIMITED (ACN 081 890 459) Respondent

JUDGE:	FOSTER J
DATE OF ORDER:	10 MARCH 2009
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

JUDGE:	FOSTER J
DATE:	10 MARCH 2009
PLACE:	SYDNEY