Edwards v Retail Employees Superannuation Pty Ltd a trustee of the Retail Employees Superannuation Trust (No 2) [2024] FCA 1446

Edwards v Retail Employees Superannuation Pty Ltd a trustee of the Retail Employees Superannuation Trust (No 2) [2024] FCA 1446

Costs should follow the event in this proceeding; the third and fourth respondents were proper parties entitled to defend their interests, and there is no basis to deprive them of costs. The applicant's conduct relating to the preparation of the appeal book was unreasonable, warranting indemnity costs for those expenses, but otherwise costs are to be on a party-party basis. The applicant's unsuccessful arguments were not so unmeritorious as to justify indemnity costs for the whole proceeding.

Parties
Applicant: James John Edwards; First Respondent: Retail Employees Superannuation Pty Ltd a trustee of the Retail Employees Superannuation Trust; Second Respondent: Australian Financial Complaints Authority; Third Respondent: Paul Henry Murphy; Fourth Respondent: Joanne Roberta Murphy
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 December 2024
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Post Judgment (costs)
Outcome
Applicant to pay the third and fourth respondents' costs as specified.
Legal Topics
Costs, Indemnity Costs, Joinder of Parties, Superannuation Death Benefits
Civil Procedure Costs Indemnity Costs Joinder of Parties Superannuation Death Benefits

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 6 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

James John Edwards

Applicant

Retail Employees Superannuation Pty Ltd a trustee of the Retail Employees Superannuation Trust

First Respondent

Australian Financial Complaints Authority

Second Respondent

Paul Henry Murphy

Third Respondent

Joanne Roberta Murphy

Fourth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Post Judgment (costs)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant should pay the costs of the third and fourth respondents
  2. 2 Whether costs should be paid on an indemnity basis or party-party basis
  3. 3 Whether third and fourth respondents were necessary or proper parties to the appeal

Ratio Decidendi

Costs should follow the event in this proceeding; the third and fourth respondents were proper parties entitled to defend their interests, and there is no basis to deprive them of costs. The applicant's conduct relating to the preparation of the appeal book was unreasonable, warranting indemnity costs for those expenses, but otherwise costs are to be on a party-party basis. The applicant's unsuccessful arguments were not so unmeritorious as to justify indemnity costs for the whole proceeding.

Court Disposition

Applicant to pay the third and fourth respondents' costs as specified.

Orders

  • Applicant to pay the third and fourth respondents' costs of and incidental to the originating application, with costs of and incidental to preparation of the appeal book index to be paid on an indemnity basis, otherwise on a party-party basis.
  • Applicant to pay 70% of the third and fourth respondents' costs of their interlocutory application dated 16 October 2024 on a party-party basis.