Endresz v Australian Securities and Investments Commission

JUDGES: EDMONDS, GORDON AND BEACH JJ DATE: 28 May 2015 PLACE: MELBOURNE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 On 19 February 2015 we allowed the appeals in each matter and on 13 March 2015 we published our reasons [2015] FCAFC 33. At that latter time we directed the parties to file submissions on the question of the costs of the appeals and the costs of the proceedings to date before the primary judge. 2 The appellants have contended that they should have their costs of the appeals and the proceedings before the primary judge. They also contend that they should have the costs of their applications to adduce fresh evidence on the appeals. 3 Contrastingly, the respondent (ASIC) contends that no order for costs should be made on the appeals, save that ASIC should be awarded its costs of the appellants' applications to adduce fresh evidence. As to the costs of the proceedings to date before the primary judge, ASIC contends that they should be reserved to his Honour for further determination. 4 In our opinion, the appellants should have their costs of the appeals. They were successful in establishing that his Honour's exercise of discretion had miscarried in failing to adjourn each of the petitions before him. True it is that the appellants raised before us other grounds of appeal, but most of them were unnecessary to decide. ASIC has sought to rely upon Stratton v Bowles (No 2) [2015] FCA 43 in support of its contention that no order for costs should be made on the appeals, but in that case no order for costs was made on the appeal because of the way the matter had proceeded at first instance. That case is distinguishable from the present. ASIC has also sought to rely upon authority to the effect that no order for costs is appropriate where a respondent has successfully applied for an adjournment of a creditor's petition. But in our view, that is a different context. We are here dealing with appeals from what has been found to be a wrongful exercise of discretion at first instance. We otherwise do not comment about the appropriateness of such a practice at first instance, if there be one. 5 As to the appellants' applications to adduce fresh evidence on the appeals, there should be no order for costs. First, some of that material was relevant to our consideration in the context of re-exercising the discretion to adjourn. Second, little time or attention was devoted by ASIC to addressing those applications. Third, if the primary judge had properly exercised his discretion and granted the adjournment, no such application would have been prompted. Fourth, in the result, it became unnecessary to deal with the applications. In all the circumstances, and even though we would have refused the applications had it been necessary to do so, we consider that costs should lie where they fall. 6 Finally, as to the costs to date of the proceedings at first instance, we consider it more appropriate that we order that those costs be the parties' costs in the cause rather than to trouble the primary judge further with their determination. If his Honour had adjourned the petitions before him, that in effect would have been the costs position that would have applied in any event. 7 We will order accordingly. I certify that the preceding seven [7] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justices Edmonds, Gordon and Beach.

Associate: Dated: 28 May 2015 Schedule of Parties Federal Court of Australia District Registry: Victoria Division: General VID 483 of 2014 VID 484 of 2014

VID 483 of 2014 Appellant: DAWN MAY ENDRESZ Respondent: AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES AND INVESTMENTS COMMISSION VID 484 of 2014 Appellant: JOZSEF ENDRESZ Respondent: AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES AND INVESTMENTS COMMISSION VID 485 of 2014 Appellant: WILLIAM ARTHUR FORGE Respondent: AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES AND INVESTMENTS COMMISSION VID 486 of 2014 Appellant: ALLAN PAUL ENDRESZ Respondent: AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES AND INVESTMENTS COMMISSION