United Petroleum Pty Ltd v Pentaco Oil (Aust) Pty Ltd (No 2) [2016] FCA 221

United Petroleum Pty Ltd v Pentaco Oil (Aust) Pty Ltd (No 2) [2016] FCA 221

The applicant was successful, or largely successful, in obtaining the relief sought on its estoppel and misleading or deceptive conduct claims, which justified an order for the respondents to pay the applicant's costs on a party-party basis. There was not sufficient unreasonable conduct by the respondents to warrant indemnity costs.

Parties
Applicant: United Petroleum Pty Ltd; First Respondent: Pentaco Oil (Aust) Pty Ltd; Second Respondent: Yarraside Service Station Pty Ltd; Third Respondent: George Andrianopoulos; Fourth Respondent: Konstantinos Andrianopoulos; Fifth Respondent: Vasilious Andrianopoulos; Sixth Respondent: Stan Andrianopoulos; Seventh Respondent: Tony Hadjistamatis
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 March 2016
Procedural Posture
Commercial Contract Dispute / Post Trial Costs Determination
Outcome
Respondents to pay applicant's costs of the proceeding, including reserved costs, to be taxed if not agreed. Applicant to notify within 14 days if it seeks a hearing on loss or damage.
Legal Topics
Costs, Injunctions, Estoppel, Misleading or Deceptive Conduct
Commercial Law Equity Corporations Law Costs Injunctions Estoppel Misleading or Deceptive Conduct

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 2 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

United Petroleum Pty Ltd

Applicant

Pentaco Oil (Aust) Pty Ltd

First Respondent

Yarraside Service Station Pty Ltd

Second Respondent

George Andrianopoulos

Third Respondent

Konstantinos Andrianopoulos

Fourth Respondent

Vasilious Andrianopoulos

Fifth Respondent

Stan Andrianopoulos

Sixth Respondent

Tony Hadjistamatis

Seventh Respondent

Procedural Posture

Commercial Contract Dispute / Post Trial Costs Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether costs should follow the event despite partial success
  2. 2 Whether indemnity costs should be ordered due to alleged unreasonable conduct

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant was successful, or largely successful, in obtaining the relief sought on its estoppel and misleading or deceptive conduct claims, which justified an order for the respondents to pay the applicant's costs on a party-party basis. There was not sufficient unreasonable conduct by the respondents to warrant indemnity costs.

Court Disposition

Respondents to pay applicant's costs of the proceeding, including reserved costs, to be taxed if not agreed. Applicant to notify within 14 days if it seeks a hearing on loss or damage.

Orders

  • Respondents to pay the applicant's costs of the proceeding, including reserved costs, to be taxed if not agreed.
  • Within 14 days, applicant to notify the respondents and the Court whether it seeks a hearing on loss or damage.