Haynes, Francis Verner & Anor v Top Slice Deli Pty Ltd & Ors [1995] FCA 1109

Haynes, Francis Verner & Anor v Top Slice Deli Pty Ltd & Ors [1995] FCA 1109

Top Slice was liable for the applicants' costs because the applicants succeeded against Top Slice and their case was not unreasonably conducted in the relevant respects, but the costs award was reduced to 75% because the applicants were found to have contributed to their own losses. The applicants had to pay the accountants' costs because the claim against the accountants failed on a point unrelated to Top Slice's behaviour and was outside section 82 of the Trade Practices Act 1974, so no Bullock or Sanderson order was justified. Top Slice was entitled to costs of the first cross claim because it substantially succeeded, although any separate or specific costs were left for agreement or...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 December 1995
Procedural Posture
Costs Judgment Following Trade Practices Act Misleading and Deceptive Conduct Proceedings and Cross Claims / Costs Reserved After Substantive Judgment; Judgment on Appeal to a Full Court
Outcome
The first, second and third respondents were ordered to pay 75% of the applicants' costs; the applicants were ordered to pay the costs of the first cross claim and the costs of the fourth, fifth and sixth respondents; no Sanderson or Bullock order was made.
Legal Topics
['costs Following the Event' 'contributory Responsibility for Loss Affecting Costs' 'bullock Order' 'sanderson Order' 'cross Claim Costs' 'franchise Profitability Representations']
['costs' 'trade Practices' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct'] ['costs Following the Event' 'contributory Responsibility for Loss Affecting Costs' 'bullock Order' 'sanderson Order' 'cross Claim Costs' 'franchise Profitability Representations']

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

Costs Judgment Following Trade Practices Act Misleading and Deceptive Conduct Proceedings and Cross Claims / Costs Reserved After Substantive Judgment; Judgment on Appeal to a Full Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether Top Slice should pay the applicants' costs and whether that costs award should be reduced because the applicants contributed to their own losses." "Whether the applicants' late pleading and alleged failure on several representations justified denying or reducing their costs against Top Slice." "Whether the joinder of the accountants justified reducing the applicants' costs against Top Slice." "Whether Top Slice should pay the accountants' costs directly by a Sanderson order or indemnify the applicants by a Bullock order." "Whether the applicants should pay the accountants' costs after the claim against the accountants was dismissed as outside section 82 of the Trade Practices Act 1974." 'Whether the Court should make additional findings about whether the cash flow supplied to the bank was misleading and deceptive.' "What costs order should be made on Top Slice's successful first cross claim."]

Ratio Decidendi

Top Slice was liable for the applicants' costs because the applicants succeeded against Top Slice and their case was not unreasonably conducted in the relevant respects, but the costs award was reduced to 75% because the applicants were found to have contributed to their own losses. The applicants had to pay the accountants' costs because the claim against the accountants failed on a point unrelated to Top Slice's behaviour and was outside section 82 of the Trade Practices Act 1974, so no Bullock or Sanderson order was justified. Top Slice was entitled to costs of the first cross claim because it substantially succeeded, although any separate or specific costs were left for agreement or...

Court Disposition

The first, second and third respondents were ordered to pay 75% of the applicants' costs; the applicants were ordered to pay the costs of the first cross claim and the costs of the fourth, fifth and sixth respondents; no Sanderson or Bullock order was made.

Orders

  • ['The first, second and third respondents are to pay 75% of the costs of the applicants on a party and party basis, as assessed or taxed.' 'The applicants are to pay the costs of the first cross claim on a party and party basis, as assessed or taxed.' 'The applicants are to pay the costs of the fourth, fifth and...