McFarlane as Trustee for the S McFarlane Superannuation Fund v IOOF Holdings Limited (No 2) [2018] FCA 932

McFarlane as Trustee for the S McFarlane Superannuation Fund v IOOF Holdings Limited (No 2) [2018] FCA 932

Because Mr McFarlane obtained fairly extensive preliminary discovery but IOOF succeeded in limiting the order to address the application's substantial overreach, each party enjoyed a measure of success. IOOF's opposition was not unreasonable given the wide-ranging claim, the extraordinary nature of preliminary discovery, and the burden on Mr McFarlane to persuade the Court of the proper ambit of discovery. Accordingly, each party should bear its own costs of the application. Given the likely significant passage of time before any later proceeding concludes and the likely significant costs of compliance, Mr McFarlane should pay IOOF's reasonable costs of complying with the preliminary...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 June 2018
Procedural Posture
Costs Application Concerning Preliminary Discovery / Costs Judgment Following Preliminary Discovery Order Made on 18 May 2018
Outcome
Each party to bear its own costs of the preliminary discovery application; the prospective applicant to pay the prospective respondent's reasonable costs of complying with the preliminary discovery order.
Legal Topics
['preliminary Discovery' 'costs Discretion' 'costs of Complying With Preliminary Discovery Order' 'federal Court Interlocutory Application']
['civil Procedure' 'costs' 'commercial and Corporations'] ['preliminary Discovery' 'costs Discretion' 'costs of Complying With Preliminary Discovery Order' 'federal Court Interlocutory Application']

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 Application Concerning Preliminary Discovery / Costs Judgment Following Preliminary Discovery Order Made on 18 May 2018

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether IOOF should pay Mr McFarlane's costs of the preliminary discovery application." "Whether Mr McFarlane should pay part of IOOF's costs of the preliminary discovery application." 'Whether IOOF acted unreasonably in refusing pre-proceeding requests and opposing the preliminary discovery application.' 'Who should bear the costs of complying with the preliminary discovery order.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because Mr McFarlane obtained fairly extensive preliminary discovery but IOOF succeeded in limiting the order to address the application's substantial overreach, each party enjoyed a measure of success. IOOF's opposition was not unreasonable given the wide-ranging claim, the extraordinary nature of preliminary discovery, and the burden on Mr McFarlane to persuade the Court of the proper ambit of discovery. Accordingly, each party should bear its own costs of the application. Given the likely significant passage of time before any later proceeding concludes and the likely significant costs of compliance, Mr McFarlane should pay IOOF's reasonable costs of complying with the preliminary...

Court Disposition

Each party to bear its own costs of the preliminary discovery application; the prospective applicant to pay the prospective respondent's reasonable costs of complying with the preliminary discovery order.

Orders

  • ['Each party bear its own costs of the preliminary discovery application.' "The prospective applicant pay the prospective respondent's reasonable costs of complying with the order for preliminary discovery made on 18 May 2018."]