PSC AMGI WSC Pty Ltd v J&P Capital Insurance Pty Ltd (No 2)

This case sits at the end of a settlement dispute that did not stay settled. In March 2025, two subsidiaries of PSC Insurance Group Limited entered into a deed of settlement and release with J&P Capital Insurance Pty Ltd and two individual respondents. The deed was supposed to resolve an existing dispute, but a further disagreement arose about whether the deed had been performed in time and what the consequences of that timing were.

The Court's reasons describe the dispute in broad terms. The PSC parties said the respondents had failed to perform the deed in time, with the consequence that the PSC parties were not entitled to pay a settlement sum of $80,000. The respondents disputed that reading of the deed and said they had performed it. They also advanced alternative arguments, including estoppel and a contention that, if the PSC parties' construction was correct, the deed would operate so that forfeiture of the settlement sum amounted to a penalty.

The judgment also notes that the dispute was not only about money. There were issues about whether the respondents had delivered up rights to certain email addresses, telephone numbers and a domain name, in the context of an underlying dispute about the sale of a business. That detail matters commercially because it shows how settlement obligations often involve customer-facing assets and digital infrastructure, not just payment.

After correspondence between the parties, during which the respondents' position moved somewhat, the PSC parties went to court seeking a declaration about the proper construction of the deed and an order enforcing further performance. The respondents defended that application and filed a cross-application seeking orders that would, in effect, require payment of the settlement sum.

There were really two layers to the litigation. The first, in the earlier substantive proceeding, concerned the deed itself. The Court had to deal with the proper construction of the deed, whether the respondents had performed it in time, whether the settlement sum of $80,000 had to be paid, and how the respondents' alternative arguments about estoppel and penalty should be treated.

This 2026 judgment was narrower. By the time of this decision, the PSC parties had already succeeded in the earlier proceeding and had obtained an order that the respondents pay their costs of the competing interlocutory applications, assessed as one set of costs if not agreed. The question now was whether those costs should be fixed by the Court on a lump-sum basis and, if so, whether $50,000 was the right amount.

The Court approached the costs question by reference to familiar considerations for lump-sum costs, including proportionality, reasonableness, the conduct of the party claiming costs, and whether the amount sought represented an appropriate discount from actual costs incurred. The Court also referred to the Federal Court's preference for lump-sum assessment where the judge is familiar with the conduct of the proceedings and has sufficient information about the costs incurred.

The procedural history of the costs application is important because the respondents did not appear at the hearing. The application for a lump-sum costs order was initially listed for a directions hearing on 28 January 2026. Before that hearing, the PSC parties' solicitors had been told that the respondents' solicitors were no longer acting. On that basis, the respondents were notified of the hearing by email to the email addresses known to the PSC parties for each respondent.

At the time of the directions hearing, however, the solicitors were still formally on the record and had not been notified of the hearing. Because of that administrative oversight, orders were made listing the lump-sum costs application for hearing, setting a timetable for any affidavit and short submissions in opposition, and reserving liberty to apply to vary the timetable.

The next day, notices of intention to cease acting were filed by the respondents' solicitors. On 6 February 2026, notices of ceasing to act were filed. The last known email addresses specified in those notices were the same email addresses that had already been used by the Court and the PSC parties. A further reminder email about the hearing was sent by the judge's associate on 4 March 2026.

When the matter came on for hearing on 5 March 2026, there was no appearance for the respondents. Counsel for the PSC parties asked the Court to proceed on the basis that the respondents had been duly notified. Justice Colvin accepted that there had been proper notice of the hearing, heard short submissions from the PSC parties, and reserved the decision.

The Court ordered that the costs payable by the respondents to the applicants, pursuant to the earlier costs order made on 3 September 2025, be assessed on a lump-sum basis in the amount of $50,000. Justice Colvin was satisfied that the amount sought should be allowed in full.

The application was supported by an affidavit from a practitioner employed by the PSC parties' solicitors. That affidavit set out a cost summary in accordance with the Court's Costs Practice Note, and the required verification had been provided. The Court recorded that the amounts incurred included disbursements totalling $8,078.82 plus GST, including external counsel fees for preparing written submissions on the penalties issue. The actual fees incurred by the PSC parties, excluding external counsel fees, were about $73,000 plus GST, and the claim represented about 62% of actual costs including disbursements.

Justice Colvin then identified six matters of particular significance. First, the amount in issue was $80,000, while also noting the additional issues concerning rights to email addresses, telephone numbers and a domain name in the context of the underlying business sale dispute. Second, the Court considered that the application to resolve the impasse over performance of the settlement deed had been pursued efficiently by those acting for the PSC parties and only after attempts at resolution. Third, the complexity of the issues, and therefore the resulting costs, had been expanded by the alternatives advanced by the respondents and was not attributable to any unreasonableness by the PSC parties.

Fourth, the Court accepted that there had been an appropriate reduction in the actual costs incurred to reflect the extent to which there were solicitor and own-client costs. Fifth, there were additional costs in having to bring the lump-sum costs application itself. Sixth, after allowing for the overall discount to actual costs, the hourly rates charged were within a reasonable range for the experience of the practitioners involved. Applying those principles, the Court fixed costs at the amount sought, namely $50,000.

The most practical point is that a settlement deed needs to work in the real world. It is not enough to agree on a headline payment figure and assume the rest will sort itself out. If the deed requires later steps such as document delivery, releases, transfer of customer contact channels, handover of digital assets or changes to account access, each step should be described precisely. The deed should say who must do what, by when, what evidence will prove completion, and what happens if a deadline is missed.

This case also shows that a settlement-performance dispute can become expensive very quickly. The amount in issue was $80,000, but the Court still fixed costs at $50,000 after considering the work required and the way the matter had been run. For many businesses, that is a serious financial consequence. A dispute about implementation can therefore wipe out much of the commercial value of the original settlement.

The reference to email addresses, telephone numbers and a domain name is especially useful for business owners. Those assets often sit at the centre of customer relationships, lead generation and brand continuity. If a sale, separation or settlement requires those assets to be transferred, surrendered or disabled, the document should identify them specifically and deal with practical control issues such as passwords, registrar access, forwarding arrangements, administrator rights and timing of cutover.

The judgment also suggests that courts pay close attention to conduct. The PSC parties were credited with pursuing the matter efficiently and after attempts at resolution. By contrast, the Court considered that the complexity had been expanded by the respondents' alternative arguments, including a new point raised on the day of the hearing. Businesses should therefore keep a careful written record of requests for performance, reminders, proposed solutions and any late changes in the other side's position. That record can matter on both the merits and costs.

One of the clearest themes in the judgment is the importance of documents. The parties filed affidavits setting out the history of their dealings in relation to the deed and the communications between them concerning performance. There was no cross-examination on those affidavits, so the documentary record was central to how the dispute was presented. That is a reminder that implementation disputes are often won or lost on emails, notices, confirmations and the exact sequence of events.

The Court also referred to a period of correspondence during which the respondents' position moved somewhat. For a business reader, that is a warning sign. If the other side's position is changing, you should document each version carefully, identify what remains in dispute, and avoid making assumptions about what has been agreed. A clear chronology can become critical if the matter later reaches court.

On costs, conduct mattered. The Court accepted that the PSC parties had acted efficiently and had first attempted to resolve the impasse. It also accepted that the complexity of the case had been expanded by the respondents' alternative positions. That does not mean every unsuccessful argument will lead to a heavier costs outcome, but it does show that the way a case is run can influence the Court's view of what costs are reasonable and proportionate.

Businesses should read this as a practical prompt to manage disputes with discipline. Keep a central file, preserve all communications, make sure notices are sent to the correct addresses, and ensure that any settlement implementation plan is actively supervised rather than left to drift.

This page is based on the Federal Court of Australia's judgment in PSC AMGI WSC Pty Ltd v J&P Capital Insurance Pty Ltd (No 2) [2026] FCA 219, delivered by Colvin J on 9 March 2026. The judgment is a costs decision. It clearly supports the costs order, the procedural history of the costs application, and the broad description of the underlying settlement-performance dispute.

Because this is not the full merits judgment, some details are necessarily limited. In particular, the exact wording of the deed and the full reasoning on construction, estoppel and penalty are not set out in this ruling. The judgment itself refers to the earlier substantive decision, PSC AMGI WSC Pty Ltd v J&P Capital Insurance Pty Ltd [2025] FCA 1057, for the outcome on the underlying claims.