Australian Transport Insurance Pty Ltd & Anor v. Graeme Phillips Road Transport Insurances Pty Ltd & Ors [1986] FCA 87

Australian Transport Insurance Pty Ltd & Anor v. Graeme Phillips Road Transport Insurances Pty Ltd & Ors [1986] FCA 87

Although serious allegations of fraud and conspiracy were not sustained and the respondents/cross-claimants were guilty of contempt of court, there was no evidence they acted without honest belief. The applicants are therefore not entitled to solicitor and client costs; the appropriate order is for costs on a party and party basis.

Parties
Applicant/cross Respondent: AUSTRALIAN TRANSPORT INSURANCE PTY. LTD.; Applicant/cross Respondent: RAYMOND BERTRAM BARTLETT; Respondent/cross Claimant: GRAEME PHILLIPS ROAD TRANSPORT INSURANCES PTY. LTD.; Respondent/cross Claimant: GRAEME PHILLIPS; Cross Respondent: JOSEPH FRANCIS McNEANY; Cross Respondent: CHRISTOPHER FRANK ALDERTON; Cross Respondent: MARY ROGERS; Cross Respondent: LES CLARKE
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 March 1986
Procedural Posture
Civil / Costs Determination After Final Judgment
Outcome
Costs awarded on a party and party basis; order for payment of fine confirmed and clarified.
Legal Topics
Costs, Solicitor and Client Costs, Party and Party Costs, Allegation of Fraud, Contempt of Court
Practice and Procedure Costs Solicitor and Client Costs Party and Party Costs Allegation of Fraud Contempt of Court

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

AUSTRALIAN TRANSPORT INSURANCE PTY. LTD.

Applicant/cross Respondent

RAYMOND BERTRAM BARTLETT

Applicant/cross Respondent

GRAEME PHILLIPS ROAD TRANSPORT INSURANCES PTY. LTD.

Respondent/cross Claimant

GRAEME PHILLIPS

Respondent/cross Claimant

JOSEPH FRANCIS McNEANY

Cross Respondent

CHRISTOPHER FRANK ALDERTON

Cross Respondent

MARY ROGERS

Cross Respondent

LES CLARKE

Cross Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil / Costs Determination After Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether costs should be awarded on a solicitor and client basis rather than a party and party basis given unsuccessful allegations of fraud and conspiracy and contempt of court.

Ratio Decidendi

Although serious allegations of fraud and conspiracy were not sustained and the respondents/cross-claimants were guilty of contempt of court, there was no evidence they acted without honest belief. The applicants are therefore not entitled to solicitor and client costs; the appropriate order is for costs on a party and party basis.

Court Disposition

Costs awarded on a party and party basis; order for payment of fine confirmed and clarified.

Orders

  • The respondents and cross-claimants pay the applicants' and cross-respondents' costs, including reserved costs, to be taxed on a party and party basis.
  • The order of 20 December 1985 is varied to require the fine to be paid to the District Registrar of this Court at 450 Little Bourke Street, Melbourne, by 22 April 1986.