Hayson, as trustee of the Hayson Family Trust v City Residential Property Pty Ltd [2020] FCA 1813

Hayson, as trustee of the Hayson Family Trust v City Residential Property Pty Ltd [2020] FCA 1813

The applicants did not prove that the first, second and fourth respondents acted unreasonably in refusing to execute the settlement deed as forwarded "for execution". The evidence did not establish a complete meeting of the minds on 24 November 2020, and the later addendum supported that conclusion. It was therefore not in the interests of justice to order those respondents to pay the applicants' costs from 6.42pm on 24 November 2020. However, because the deed had been forwarded "for execution" in error, the first, second and fourth respondents were also not awarded their costs of the failed application, and costs were left where they fell.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 December 2020
Procedural Posture
Application for Costs / Determined on the Papers After Substantive Settlement of the Proceeding
Outcome
The applicants' application for costs was dismissed, with each party to bear its own costs of and in connection with the application.
Legal Topics
['costs After Settlement' 'settlement Deed' 'unreasonable Conduct' 'commercial Contracts']
['costs' 'civil Procedure' 'commercial and Corporations'] ['costs After Settlement' 'settlement Deed' 'unreasonable Conduct' 'commercial Contracts']

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application for Costs / Determined on the Papers After Substantive Settlement of the Proceeding

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the conduct of the first, second and fourth respondents in refusing to execute the settlement deed in the terms forwarded to them "for execution" was unreasonable.' "Whether it was in the interests of justice to order the first, second and fourth respondents to pay the applicants' costs incurred after 6.42pm on 24 November 2020." "Whether the first, second and fourth respondents should recover their costs of the applicants' failed costs application."]

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants did not prove that the first, second and fourth respondents acted unreasonably in refusing to execute the settlement deed as forwarded "for execution". The evidence did not establish a complete meeting of the minds on 24 November 2020, and the later addendum supported that conclusion. It was therefore not in the interests of justice to order those respondents to pay the applicants' costs from 6.42pm on 24 November 2020. However, because the deed had been forwarded "for execution" in error, the first, second and fourth respondents were also not awarded their costs of the failed application, and costs were left where they fell.

Court Disposition

The applicants' application for costs was dismissed, with each party to bear its own costs of and in connection with the application.

Orders

  • ["The applicants' application for costs be dismissed." "Each party bear its own costs of and in connection with the applicants' application."]