Spirits International B.V. v Federal Treasury Enterprise (FKP) Sojuzplodoimport (No 2) [2013] FCAFC 120

Spirits International B.V. v Federal Treasury Enterprise (FKP) Sojuzplodoimport (No 2) [2013] FCAFC 120

The discretion to order costs should reflect the outcome and overall conduct of the case. Despite part success on appeal, the primary judge was correct to reject the proposed rejoinder, and the opportunity to amend particulars was an indulgence. Accordingly, the cross-respondent should pay the cross-claimant’s costs of the hearing below, and each party should pay its own costs of the appeal and application for leave to appeal.

Parties
Appellant / Cross Respondent: Spirits International B.V.; First Respondent / Cross Claimant: Federal Treasury Enterprise (FKP) Sojuzplodoimport; Second Respondent / Cross Claimant: Federal Public Unitary Enterprise External Economic Union Sojuzplodoimport (FGUP VO)
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 October 2013
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Costs Determination Following Appeal
Outcome
Orders as to costs after appeal; partial cost shifting
Legal Topics
Appeals, Costs
Civil Procedure Appeals Costs

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Spirits International B.V.

Appellant / Cross Respondent

Federal Treasury Enterprise (FKP) Sojuzplodoimport

First Respondent / Cross Claimant

Federal Public Unitary Enterprise External Economic Union Sojuzplodoimport (FGUP VO)

Second Respondent / Cross Claimant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Costs Determination Following Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Entitlement to costs following partial success on appeal
  2. 2 Appropriate apportionment of costs between parties
  3. 3 Effect of amendment to particulars during appeal

Ratio Decidendi

The discretion to order costs should reflect the outcome and overall conduct of the case. Despite part success on appeal, the primary judge was correct to reject the proposed rejoinder, and the opportunity to amend particulars was an indulgence. Accordingly, the cross-respondent should pay the cross-claimant’s costs of the hearing below, and each party should pay its own costs of the appeal and application for leave to appeal.

Court Disposition

Orders as to costs after appeal; partial cost shifting

Orders

  • The cross-respondent pay the cross-claimant's costs of the hearing below, as agreed or taxed.
  • Each party pay its own costs of the application for leave to appeal and of the appeal.