Australian Securities & Investments Commission v Perpetual Trustee Company (Canberra) Ltd [2000] FCA 1880

Australian Securities & Investments Commission v Perpetual Trustee Company (Canberra) Ltd [2000] FCA 1880

The proposed indemnity costs order based on the nature of the proceedings and Trust indemnities was rejected as unsound and requiring collateral issues to be decided. However, ASIC had rejected Calderbank offers that were more favourable than the ultimate result, and the contemporaneous correspondence showed the parties had taken their chances on indemnity costs; ASIC therefore was to pay Perpetual's costs on a party and party basis up to and including 20 October 2000 and on an indemnity-style basis thereafter. Perpetual, as cross claimant, was to pay the second and third cross respondents' costs except for proceedings covered by the Full Court order, and no order was made for the day's...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 December 2000
Procedural Posture
Practice and Procedure – Costs / Costs Determination After Dismissal of the Application and Cross Claims
Outcome
Costs orders made after the application and cross claims had been dismissed.
Legal Topics
['indemnity Costs' 'calderbank Offer' 'bullock Order' 'party and Party Costs' 'cross Claims']
['practice and Procedure' 'costs'] ['indemnity Costs' 'calderbank Offer' 'bullock Order' 'party and Party Costs' 'cross Claims']

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

Practice and Procedure – Costs / Costs Determination After Dismissal of the Application and Cross Claims

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the nature of the proceedings and the Trust indemnities justified an indemnity costs order against ASIC.' "Whether ASIC's rejection of Perpetual's Calderbank offers justified an indemnity costs order after 20 October 2000." 'Whether Perpetual should pay the costs of the Snow interests, including costs dealt with by the Full Court order.' "Whether a Bullock order or a direct order against ASIC should be made for the Snow interests' costs." 'Whether any order should be made for the costs of the costs applications heard that day.']

Ratio Decidendi

The proposed indemnity costs order based on the nature of the proceedings and Trust indemnities was rejected as unsound and requiring collateral issues to be decided. However, ASIC had rejected Calderbank offers that were more favourable than the ultimate result, and the contemporaneous correspondence showed the parties had taken their chances on indemnity costs; ASIC therefore was to pay Perpetual's costs on a party and party basis up to and including 20 October 2000 and on an indemnity-style basis thereafter. Perpetual, as cross claimant, was to pay the second and third cross respondents' costs except for proceedings covered by the Full Court order, and no order was made for the day's...

Court Disposition

Costs orders made after the application and cross claims had been dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The cross claimant pay the costs of the second and third cross respondents of the proceedings, excluding the proceedings dealt with by the order of the Full Court on 15 March 1999.' 'The applicant pay the costs of the respondent of the proceeding excluding the proceedings dealt with by the order of the Full Court...