Wilmoth Field Warne v Castel Electronics Pty Ltd

Link copied
Case Copied 7 min read

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Wilmoth Field Warne v Castel Electronics Pty Ltd [2011] FCA 193

Citation: Wilmoth Field Warne v Castel Electronics Pty Ltd [2011] FCA 193
Parties: CASTEL ELECTRONICS PTY LTD (ACN 074 561 087) v TOSHIBA SINGAPORE PTE LTD (REG NO 197401688Z) AND WILMOTH FIELD WARNE
File number(s): VID 141 of 2008
Judge: RYAN J
Date of judgment: 4 March 2011
Date of hearing: 4 March 2011
Place: Melbourne
Division: GENERAL DIVISION
Category: No Catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 7
Counsel for the Applicant: Mr G Clarke SC with Mr D Bailey
Solicitor for the Applicant: Browne & Co
Counsel for the Third Party: Mr M Stirling
Solicitor for the Third Party: Wilmoth Field Warne

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

VID 141 of 2008
BETWEEN:

CASTEL ELECTRONICS PTY LTD (ACN 074 561 087)
Applicant
AND:

TOSHIBA SINGAPORE PTE LTD (REG NO 197401688Z)
Respondent
AND: WILMOTH FIELD WARNE
Third Party

JUDGE:

RYAN J

DATE OF ORDER:

4 MARCH 2011

WHERE MADE:

MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.        The motion on notice filed on 25 February 2011 by the Third Party be dismissed.

2.The costs of the Third Party and the applicant Castel Electronics Pty Ltd of and incidental to the motion on notice be reserved to the Registrar conducting a taxation of any bill of costs submitted by the Third Party or otherwise to a Judge of the Court.

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

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

VID 141 of 2008
BETWEEN:

CASTEL ELECTRONICS PTY LTD (ACN 074 561 087)
Applicant
AND:

TOSHIBA SINGAPORE PTE LTD (REG NO 197401688Z)
Respondent
AND: WILMOTH FIELD WARNE
Third Party

JUDGE:

RYAN J

DATE:

4 MARCH 2011

PLACE:

MELBOURNE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. There is before the Court a notice of motion by a firm of solicitors, Wilmoth Field Warne (“the Third Party”), which acted for the applicant Castel Electronics Pty Ltd (“Castel”) for most of the duration of the substantive proceedings in this action.  Judgment was entered for Castel on 9 December 2010 for damages and interest amounting in all to $4,660,483.51.  By paragraph 1 of its notice of motion the Third Party claims a:

    1.[Declaration] that Wilmoth Field Warne has an equitable lien, to the extent of $580,105.99 over the judgment debts set out below as ordered by Justice Ryan in this honourable Court in favour of Castel Electronics Pty Ltd and against Toshiba Singapore Pte Ltd:

    (1)on 28 September 2010 Toshiba Singapore Pte Ltd was ordered to pay Castel Electronics Pty Ltd the sum of $2,613,127.00;

    (2)on 9 December 2010 Toshiba Singapore Pte Ltd was ordered to pay Castel Electronics Pty Ltd the sum of $2,047,356.51;

    such equitable lien being in relation to the legal costs owed to Wilmoth Field Warne in acting as the legal practitioners for the Applicant in…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Wilmoth Field Warne v Castel Electronics Pty Ltd 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
[2011] FCA 193
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, the matter of Wilmoth Field Warne versus Castel Electronics Pty Ltd was adjudicated. The dispute involved the interpretation of contractual terms between the two parties. Castel Electronics Pty Ltd had sought to have certain claims made against them by a third party dismissed, arguing that the third party had no standing to bring the claims. Wilmoth Field Warne, the third party in this matter, opposed the motion to dismiss, asserting that the contractual obligations were clear and that they were entitled to bring the claims against Castel Electronics Pty Ltd.

The primary legal issue before the court was the standing of the third party to bring claims against Castel Electronics Pty Ltd. The court had to determine whether the contractual terms allowed for such claims and if the third party's rights were sufficiently protected under the contract. Additionally, the court needed to address whether the third party's claims were valid and enforceable against Castel Electronics Pty Ltd, and if the third party had any legitimate interest in the proceedings.

In delivering its judgment, the court held that the contractual terms did not support the third party's claims. The court found that the third party had no direct contractual relationship with Castel Electronics Pty Ltd and therefore lacked standing to bring the claims. The court ruled that the third party's claims were not valid as they did not align with the obligations and rights outlined in the contract between Wilmoth Field Warne and Castel Electronics Pty Ltd. As a result, the motion on notice filed by the third party was dismissed, and the costs of the motion were reserved for taxation.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The motion on notice filed on 25 February 2011 by the Third Party be dismissed.

2. The costs of the Third Party and the applicant Castel Electronics Pty Ltd of and incidental to the motion on notice be reserved to the Registrar conducting a taxation of any bill of costs submitted by the Third Party or otherwise to a Judge of the Court.

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

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.