Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Carpathian Resources Ltd v Hendriks [2012] FCA 496 Citation: Carpathian Resources Ltd v Hendriks [2012] FCA 496
Parties: CARPATHIAN RESOURCES LTD (ACN 080 273 703) and HIGHMOOR BUSINESS CORPORATION v MICHAEL PETRUS HENDRIKS, CHARLES POSTERNACK and JAMES PAUL WIBERG
File number: WAD 405 of 2010
Judge: MCKERRACHER J
Date of judgment: 15 May 2012
Catchwords: COSTS - Federal Court Act 1976 (Cth) s 43 – consideration of circumstances when court will exercise its discretion to award costs against a non-party – whether costs should be awarded against unsuccessful respondents' solicitors – whether it was a 'serious dereliction of duty' for solicitors to accept retainer from directors when at the time of accepting retainer and commencing proceedings there was a dispute as to whether directors were validly appointed to and removed from company board – solicitors given notice that there would be a costs claim against them at the time of commencing unauthorized proceeding Held: the issue of whether or not there was authority could only be conclusively determined at trial and that costs should not be awarded against the solicitors
Legislation: Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 43
Cases cited: Bagley v Pinebelt Pty Ltd [2000] NSWSC 655 Caboolture Park Shopping Centre Pty Ltd (In Liq) v White Industries (Qld) Pty Ltd (1993) 45 FCR 224 Carpathian Resources Ltd v Hendriks (2011) 81 ACSR 542 Cook v Pasminco Ltd (No 2) (2000) 107 FCR 44 De Sousa v Minister for Immigration, Local Government & Ethnic Affairs (1993) 41 FCR 544 Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Institute of Tax Research Pty Ltd (in liq) [2001] SASC 118 Gersten v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2000] FCA 922 Guss v Geelong Building Society (in liq) [2001] VSC 288 Harley v McDonald [2001] 2 WLR 1749 Knight v FP Special Assets Ltd (1992) 174 CLR 178 Lai v Tiao (No 2) [2009] WASC 22 (S2) Lai v Tiao [No 2] [2009] WASC 22 (S) Levick v Commissioner of Taxation (2000) 102 FCR 155 McKewins Hairdressing and Beauty Supplies Pty Ltd (in liq) v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (2000) 171 ALR 335 Medcalf v Mardell [2003] 1 AC 120 Mifsud v Chemplex Australia Ltd [1999] VSCA 175 Montevento Holdings Pty Ltd v Scaffidi Holdings Pty Ltd (No 2) [2010] WASC 180 Myers v Elman [1940] AC 282 MZWOR v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FMCA 845 Nelson v Nelson [1997] 1 All ER 970 Nominal Defendant v Kisse [2001] QDC 290 R v Dunstan (No 2) (2000) 112 A Crim R 63 Re Bendeich (No 2) (1994) 53 FCR 422 Ridehalgh v Horsefield [1994] Ch 205 Waterless Systems (Aus) Pty Ltd v Mulholland [2001] QSC 41 Wentworth v Rogers [1999] NSWCA 403 White Industries (Qld) Pty Ltd v Flower & Hart (a firm) (1998) 156 ALR 169 Zimmerman Holdings v Wales [2002] NSWSC 447
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate