Fahey, Mary-Anne & Ors v Stephens Publishing Pty Ltd & Anor Stephens Publishing Pty Ltd & Anor v McFadyen, Ian Hector [1997] FCA 143

Fahey, Mary-Anne & Ors v Stephens Publishing Pty Ltd & Anor Stephens Publishing Pty Ltd & Anor v McFadyen, Ian Hector [1997] FCA 143

Stephens Publishing did not establish by evidence that Mr McFadyen had the requisite intention, knowledge, motive, or purpose to deprive applicants of the benefit of judgment, nor that the circumstances supported the inference required for tortious liability. The principles analogising non-party costs orders to...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 March 1997
Procedural Posture
Application and Appeal / Judgment After Hearing of Applications and Motions
Outcome
Applications and motions dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['non Party Costs Orders' 'wrongful Procurement of Breach of Contract' 'wrongful Procurement of Breach of Equitable Duty' 'conspiracy' 'security for Costs']
['costs' 'tort' 'equity'] ['non Party Costs Orders' 'wrongful Procurement of Breach of Contract' 'wrongful Procurement of Breach of Equitable Duty' 'conspiracy' 'security for Costs']

Source-derived case record

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 and Appeal / Judgment After Hearing of Applications and Motions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether a non-party (Mr McFadyen) should be ordered to pay costs awarded in favour of Stephens Publishing; whether Mr McFadyen procured or conspired to breach contract/equitable duty so as to render Corporation unable to pay damages to Stephens Publishing; whether general principles relating to security for costs apply in claims for damages by a plaintiff against a defendant or non-party.']

Ratio Decidendi

Stephens Publishing did not establish by evidence that Mr McFadyen had the requisite intention, knowledge, motive, or purpose to deprive applicants of the benefit of judgment, nor that the circumstances supported the inference required for tortious liability. The principles analogising non-party costs orders to security for costs do not support making an order in favour of a party seeking damages from a non-party in substance defending their position. Thus, both the applications for non-party costs orders and the substantive claims in tort were dismissed.

Court Disposition

Applications and motions dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ["Respondents' motions that Ian Hector McFadyen pay costs refused with costs." 'Application in VG 195 of 1993 dismissed with costs.']