White Property Developments Ltd v Richmond Growth Pty Ltd & Ors [1998] FCA 253

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA COSTS - applicant successful in contract claim against company but unsuccessful in Trade Practices Act and Fair Trading Act claims against company, two directors and company's agent - whether costs should follow the event - whether a Sanderson or Bullock order is appropriate - conduct of personal respondents and their relationship to the respondent company - relevant considerations - personal respondents to pay their own costs Sanderson v Blythe Theatre Co [1903] 2 KB 533, considered Bullock v London General Omnibus Company (1907) 1 KB 264, considered Oshlack v Richmond River Council (High Court, McHugh J, unreported, 25.2.98), applied Hughes v Western Australian Cricket AssociationInc (1986) ATPR 40-748 Queensland Wire Industries Pty Ltd v The Broken Hill Proprietary Co Ltd (1987) 78 ALR 368, referred Gould v Vaggelas (1984) 56 ALR 31, applied WHITE PROPERTY DEVELOPMENTS LTD v RICHMOND GROWTH PTY LTD AND ORS NG 445 of 1995 MADGWICK J SYDNEY 23 MARCH 1998

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NG 445 of 1995

BETWEEN: WHITE PROPERTY DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED (ACN 008 528 586)

Applicant

AND: richmond growth PTY LIMITED (ACN 064 750 241)

FIRST RESPONDENT

JOHN BERNARD O'BRIEN

SECOND RESPONDENT

GRAHAM ALLEN PAULL

THIRD RESPONDENT

KEN BENNETT

FOURTH RESPONDENT

JUDGE(S): MADGWICK J

DATE: 23 MARCH 1998

PLACE: SYDNEY

MINUTES OF ORDERS THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. Judgment be entered for the applicant against the first respondent. 2. Judgment be entered for the second, third and fourth respondent against the applicant. 3. The first respondent pay the applicant the sum of two hundred and fifty thousand dollars ($250,000.00). 4. The first respondent pay the applicant interest on the judgment in the sum of eighty four thousand two hundred and seventy four dollars ($84,274.00). 5. Subject to order 7, the first respondent is to pay the applicant's costs.