Young v Hughes Trueman Pty Ltd (No 3) - [2017] FCA 235

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Young v Hughes Trueman Pty Ltd (No 3) [2017] FCA 235

File number: NSD 920 of 2016

Judge: BROMWICH J

Date of judgment: 10 March 2017

Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – applications for stay of hearing of interlocutory application – where interlocutory application seeks special costs order following success in Federal Court proceedings – where special costs order is sought against solicitors for unsuccessful party to Federal Court proceedings and unsuccessful party – where applicants for stay are unsuccessful party to Federal Court proceedings and solicitors for unsuccessful party – where related litigation still on foot and show cause application filed in the High Court in respect of earlier Federal Court proceedings – held: insufficient grounds for stay established, stay applications dismissed with costs

Cases cited:
Coal and Allied Operations Pty Ltd v Australian Industrial Relations Commission [2000] HCA 47; (2000) 203 CLR 194

Margo Young v Brian Keith Hones & Ors [2017] HCASL 27

Medcalf v Mardell [2003] 1 AC 120

NA & J Investments v Minister Administering the Water Management Act 2000 (No 2) [2011] NSWLEC 98

Re Refugee Review Tribunal; ex parte Aala [2000] HCA 57; (2000) 204 CLR 82

SZUWX v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCAFC 77; (2016) 238 FCR 456

Young v Hughes Trueman Pty Ltd [2016] FCA 1176

Young v Hughes Trueman Pty Ltd (No 2) [2017] FCA 87

Young v Hughes Trueman Pty Ltd & Anor [2016] FCCA 989

Date of hearing: 9 February 2017

Registry: New South Wales

Division: General Division

National Practice Area: Commercial and Corporations

Sub-area: General and Personal Insolvency

Category: Catchwords

Number of paragraphs: 24

Counsel for the First, Second and Third Applicants
on the Interlocutory Stay Application dated 16 December 2016: Mr D A Lloyd

Solicitor for the First, Second and Third Applicants
on the Interlocutory Stay Application dated 16 December 2016: Yeldham Price O’Brien Lusk

Solicitor for the Applicant
on the Interlocutory Stay Application dated 16 December 2016: Mr L C Muriniti, L.C. Muriniti & Associates

Counsel for the Respondents on the Interlocutory Stay Applications dated 16 December 2016 and 16 December 2016: Mr Y Shariff

Solicitor for the Respondents on the Interlocutory Stay Applications dated 16 December 2016 and 16 December 2016: Kennedys

ORDERS

NSD 920 of 2016

BETWEEN:
MARGO YOUNG

Applicant

AND:
HUGHES TRUEMAN PTY LTD

First Respondent

STEPHEN JOHN PERRENS

Second Respondent

IN THE INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATIONS:

BETWEEN:

MARGO YOUNG

Applicant to the Interlocutory Stay Application
dated 16 December 2016

BETWEEN:
L.C. MURINITI & ASSOCIATES

First Applicant to the Interlocutory Stay Application
dated 16 December 2016

LEONARDO CARLO MURINITI

Second Applicant to the Interlocutory Stay Application
dated 16 December 2016

ROBERT DUANE NEWELL

Third Applicant to the Interlocutory Stay Application
dated 16 December 2016

AND:
HUGHES TRUEMAN PTY LTD

First Respondent to the Interlocutory Stay Applications dated 16 December 2016 and 16 December 2016

STEPHEN JOHN PERRENS

Second Respondent to the Interlocutory Stay Applications dated 16 December 2016 and 16 December 2016

JUDGE:

BROMWICH J

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 Young v Hughes Trueman Pty Ltd (No 3)

Details

AGLC: Young v Hughes Trueman Pty Ltd (No 3) [2017] FCA 235
Case: [2017] FCA 235
Decision Date: 10 March 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicants, Young and Hughes Trueman Pty Ltd, sought a stay of an interlocutory application for special costs following their defeat in Federal Court proceedings. The respondents, Young and the firm of solicitors who represented Young in the Federal Court proceedings, sought a special costs order against the unsuccessful party and their solicitors. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the applicants had established sufficient grounds to warrant a stay of the interlocutory application for special costs. The court considered the criteria for granting a stay of proceedings, the status of related litigation, and the merits of the special costs application itself.

The court found that the applicants had not established sufficient grounds for a stay of the interlocutory application. The court held that the ongoing related litigation and the show cause application filed in the High Court did not constitute sufficient grounds for a stay. Furthermore, the court noted that the special costs application was within the scope of the court’s discretion and that the applicants had not demonstrated that the hearing of the special costs application would result in an injustice. The court confirmed the procedural orders for the hearing of the special costs application, and dismissed the applications to stay with costs.

In summary, the court dismissed the applications to stay the interlocutory application for special costs and ordered that the hearing proceed as scheduled. The court also confirmed the procedural orders for the hearing of the special costs application. The orders were made under Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011, which governs the entry of orders in the Federal Court of Australia.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The applications to stay the special costs application be dismissed with costs.

2. The hearing of the special costs application proceed as scheduled on 27 April 2017.

3. The procedural orders for the hearing of the special costs application made on 13 December 2016 be confirmed.

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.

File number:	NSD 920 of 2016
Judge:	BROMWICH J
Date of judgment:	10 March 2017
Catchwords:	PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – applications for stay of hearing of interlocutory application – where interlocutory application seeks special costs order following success in Federal Court proceedings – where special costs order is sought against solicitors for unsuccessful party to Federal Court proceedings and unsuccessful party – where applicants for stay are unsuccessful party to Federal Court proceedings and solicitors for unsuccessful party – where related litigation still on foot and show cause application filed in the High Court in respect of earlier Federal Court proceedings – held: insufficient grounds for stay established, stay applications dismissed with costs
Cases cited:	Coal and Allied Operations Pty Ltd v Australian Industrial Relations Commission [2000] HCA 47; (2000) 203 CLR 194 Margo Young v Brian Keith Hones & Ors [2017] HCASL 27 Medcalf v Mardell [2003] 1 AC 120 NA & J Investments v Minister Administering the Water Management Act 2000 (No 2) [2011] NSWLEC 98 Re Refugee Review Tribunal; ex parte Aala [2000] HCA 57; (2000) 204 CLR 82 SZUWX v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCAFC 77; (2016) 238 FCR 456 Young v Hughes Trueman Pty Ltd [2016] FCA 1176 Young v Hughes Trueman Pty Ltd (No 2) [2017] FCA 87 Young v Hughes Trueman Pty Ltd & Anor [2016] FCCA 989
Date of hearing:	9 February 2017
Registry:	New South Wales
Division:	General Division
National Practice Area:	Commercial and Corporations
Sub-area:	General and Personal Insolvency
Category:	Catchwords
Number of paragraphs:	24
Counsel for the First, Second and Third Applicants on the Interlocutory Stay Application dated 16 December 2016:	Mr D A Lloyd
Solicitor for the First, Second and Third Applicants on the Interlocutory Stay Application dated 16 December 2016:	Yeldham Price O’Brien Lusk
Solicitor for the Applicant on the Interlocutory Stay Application dated 16 December 2016:	Mr L C Muriniti, L.C. Muriniti & Associates
Counsel for the Respondents on the Interlocutory Stay Applications dated 16 December 2016 and 16 December 2016:	Mr Y Shariff
Solicitor for the Respondents on the Interlocutory Stay Applications dated 16 December 2016 and 16 December 2016:	Kennedys