Windsor v National Mutual Life Association of Australia Limited [1992] FCA 1101

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY No. VG3007 of 1991

GENERAL DIVISION

BETWEEN: PETER GRENFELL WINDSOR Appellant AND:

THE NATIONAL MUTUAL LIFE ASSOCIATION OF AUSTRALIA LIMITED

Respondent THE NATIONAL MUTUAL

LIFE ASSOCIATION OF AUSTRALIA LIMITED

Cross-appellant

PETER GRENFELL WINDSOR

Cross~respondent

CORAM: BLACK C.J., BEAUMONT AND RYAN JJ.

PLACE: MELBOURNE DATE : &6 OCTOBER, INF2Z

MINUTES OF ORDER

THE COURT ORDERS:

The appellant pay the respondent's costs of the appeal and that the cross-appellant pay the cross- respondent's costs of the cross appeal.

Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

) ) VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY ) No. VG3007 of 1991 ) )

GENERAL DIVISION

BETWEEN: PETER GRENFELL WINDSOR

Appellant

THE NATIONAL MUTUAL LIFE ASSOCIATION OF AUSTRALIA LIMITED

Respondent

THE NATIONAL MUTUAL LIFE ASSOCIATION OF AUSTRALIA LIMITED

Cross-appellant

PETER GRENFELL WINDSOR

Cross~respondent

CORAM: BLACK C.J., BEAUMONT AND RYAN JJ. DATE: 2e COctOoBER WIAA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT (on _ reserved costs)

THE COURT:

When the appeal and cross-appeal in this matter were dismissed, costs of the appeal and of the cross-appeal were reserved. The parties were given leave to file written

submissions. The parties have now filed written submissions.

At first instance, on the question of costs, Heerey

J. said ((1991) 100 ALR 585 at 599):

"Costs

I accept what Mr Finkelstein [senior ~counsel for National Mutual] says as to the lack of any suggestion of improper conduct on behalf of his client. No such suggestion is made or could be made. I accept, of course, that ordinarily the

successful party recovers his costs.

Nevertheless, there are some unusual features of this case. While I have found that the applicant's legal submissions are valid, the case has not been without difficulty and there is to my mind a public interest element, having regard to the very large number of members of this company, more in number than one or two of the Australian States. The question of the kind of notice of general meetings members are entitled to get does involve a matter of public interest and takes this case outside the usual run of cases.