Sino Iron Pty Ltd v Secretary, Department of Infrastructure and Transport (No 2) [2014] FCA 755

Sino Iron Pty Ltd v Secretary, Department of Infrastructure and Transport (No 2) [2014] FCA 755

The appellants were required to seek leave to amend because of their own failure to include the grounds in the original notice of appeal, gave no evidence explaining that failure, and did not show that Mineralogy acted unreasonably or that there was any sufficient reason to deprive Mineralogy of its costs. The fact that both sides had some success did not displace the ordinary principle that the opposing party receives the costs of an amendment application, particularly where Mineralogy's opposition to the third proposed amendments was upheld and it had agreed in advance to other amendments.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 July 2014
Procedural Posture
Appeal From the Federal Court of Australia / Costs Determination Following Interlocutory Application to Amend Notice of Appeal
Outcome
The appellants were ordered to pay the second respondent's costs of the hearing of the interlocutory application to amend the notice of appeal, as agreed or taxed.
Legal Topics
['amendment of Notice of Appeal' 'costs of Interlocutory Application' 'costs Discretion' 'costs Thrown Away']
['costs' 'civil Procedure'] ['amendment of Notice of Appeal' 'costs of Interlocutory Application' 'costs Discretion' 'costs Thrown Away']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Appeal From the Federal Court of Australia / Costs Determination Following Interlocutory Application to Amend Notice of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the appellants should pay the second respondent's costs of the hearing of the interlocutory application to amend the notice of appeal." 'Whether the second respondent acted unreasonably in opposing the amendments or whether there was otherwise sufficient reason why it should bear the costs of the hearing.']

Ratio Decidendi

The appellants were required to seek leave to amend because of their own failure to include the grounds in the original notice of appeal, gave no evidence explaining that failure, and did not show that Mineralogy acted unreasonably or that there was any sufficient reason to deprive Mineralogy of its costs. The fact that both sides had some success did not displace the ordinary principle that the opposing party receives the costs of an amendment application, particularly where Mineralogy's opposition to the third proposed amendments was upheld and it had agreed in advance to other amendments.

Court Disposition

The appellants were ordered to pay the second respondent's costs of the hearing of the interlocutory application to amend the notice of appeal, as agreed or taxed.

Orders

  • ["The appellants pay the second respondent's costs of the hearing of the interlocutory application to amend the notice of appeal, as agreed or taxed."]