Melbourne City Investments Pty Ltd v Treasury Wine Estates Ltd [2019] FCA 1458

Melbourne City Investments Pty Ltd v Treasury Wine Estates Ltd [2019] FCA 1458

The costs order appealed from was interlocutory in nature, thus requiring leave to appeal under s 24(1A) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth). The releases contained in the Settlement Deed from the Jones proceeding did not bar TWE's claim for costs in this proceeding because such a claim was not contemplated by the parties at the time of the deed, and it did not relate sufficiently to the subject matter of the Jones proceeding. No sufficient doubt attended the correctness of the primary judge's decision to warrant reconsideration on appeal.

Parties
Appellant/applicant: Melbourne City Investments Pty Ltd ACN 161 046 304; Respondent: Treasury Wine Estates Ltd ACN 004 373 862
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 September 2019
Procedural Posture
Appeal and Application for Leave to Appeal / Appeal Against Costs Order; Application for Extension of Time for Leave to Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; application for leave to appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Costs, Appeals, Interpretation of Settlement Deed, Extension of Time, Class Action Settlements
Civil Procedure Corporations Law Costs Appeals Interpretation of Settlement Deed Extension of Time Class Action Settlements

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 3 Authorities cited 25 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Melbourne City Investments Pty Ltd ACN 161 046 304

Appellant/applicant

Treasury Wine Estates Ltd ACN 004 373 862

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal and Application for Leave to Appeal / Appeal Against Costs Order; Application for Extension of Time for Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the costs order was interlocutory or final for the purpose of appeal competency
  2. 2 Whether the releases in the Settlement Deed barred Treasury Wine Estates' claim for costs in the present proceeding
  3. 3 Whether leave to appeal should be granted from the costs order

Ratio Decidendi

The costs order appealed from was interlocutory in nature, thus requiring leave to appeal under s 24(1A) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth). The releases contained in the Settlement Deed from the Jones proceeding did not bar TWE's claim for costs in this proceeding because such a claim was not contemplated by the parties at the time of the deed, and it did not relate sufficiently to the subject matter of the Jones proceeding. No sufficient doubt attended the correctness of the primary judge's decision to warrant reconsideration on appeal.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; application for leave to appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed (NSD 977 of 2019).
  • The appellant/applicant pay the respondent's costs as agreed or taxed (both matters).