Tycoon Holdings Pty Ltd & Anor v Trencor Jetco Inc & Anor [1995] FCA 1110

Tycoon Holdings Pty Ltd & Anor v Trencor Jetco Inc & Anor [1995] FCA 1110

Because the applicants succeeded on the motion for leave to amend, the respondents should pay the applicants' costs of that motion; however, because the applicants did not dispute the respondents' entitlement to costs thrown away by reason of the allowed amendments, the applicants should pay the respondents' costs incurred and thrown away in consequence of the amendments and the costs of any further amendments made in consequence of the motion.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 December 1995
Procedural Posture
Proceedings for Damages Arising From Purchase and Hire of a Trencher / Costs Submissions After Motion for Leave to Amend Statement of Claim Was Allowed
Outcome
Original costs order that the respondents pay the costs of the applicants' successful motion stands, with an additional order that the applicants pay the respondents' costs thrown away in consequence of the amendments and further consequential amendments.
Legal Topics
['amendment of Statement of Claim' 'costs Thrown Away' 'costs Discretion' 'opposition to Amendment']
['civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['amendment of Statement of Claim' 'costs Thrown Away' 'costs Discretion' 'opposition to Amendment']

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

Proceedings for Damages Arising From Purchase and Hire of a Trencher / Costs Submissions After Motion for Leave to Amend Statement of Claim Was Allowed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the respondents should pay the costs of the applicants' successful motion for leave to amend the statement of claim" "Whether the applicants should pay the respondents' costs thrown away by reason of the amendments and any further amendments made in consequence of the motion"]

Ratio Decidendi

Because the applicants succeeded on the motion for leave to amend, the respondents should pay the applicants' costs of that motion; however, because the applicants did not dispute the respondents' entitlement to costs thrown away by reason of the allowed amendments, the applicants should pay the respondents' costs incurred and thrown away in consequence of the amendments and the costs of any further amendments made in consequence of the motion.

Court Disposition

Original costs order that the respondents pay the costs of the applicants' successful motion stands, with an additional order that the applicants pay the respondents' costs thrown away in consequence of the amendments and further consequential amendments.

Orders

  • ["The respondents pay the costs of the applicants' successful motion for leave to amend." "The applicants pay the respondents' costs incurred and thrown away in consequence of the amendments." "The applicants pay the respondents' costs of any further amendments made in consequence of the motion."]