Yates Property Corp Pty Ltd v Boland [1999] FCA 397

Yates Property Corp Pty Ltd v Boland [1999] FCA 397

The Court had previously considered it premature to order the first and third respondents to pay the first appellant's costs of the trial because the damages assessment might show that the first appellant would not recover more than it had already recovered. For that reason, it was even more clearly premature to order the first and third respondents to indemnify the first appellant in respect of the second respondent's trial costs, so the motion was dismissed with costs.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 April 1999
Procedural Posture
Costs Motion in Appeal / Motion Seeking an Indemnity Order in the Nature of a Bullock Order After Appeal
Outcome
Motion dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['bullock Order' 'indemnity for Costs' 'costs of Trial' 'security for Costs' 'prematurity of Costs Order']
['costs' 'civil Procedure'] ['bullock Order' 'indemnity for Costs' 'costs of Trial' 'security for Costs' 'prematurity of Costs Order']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Costs Motion in Appeal / Motion Seeking an Indemnity Order in the Nature of a Bullock Order After Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the first and third respondents should indemnify the first appellant in relation to the primary judge's order that the first appellant pay the second respondent's costs of the trial." 'Whether the application for an indemnity order was premature pending assessment of damages.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court had previously considered it premature to order the first and third respondents to pay the first appellant's costs of the trial because the damages assessment might show that the first appellant would not recover more than it had already recovered. For that reason, it was even more clearly premature to order the first and third respondents to indemnify the first appellant in respect of the second respondent's trial costs, so the motion was dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Motion dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The motion notice of which was filed on 14 December 1998 be dismissed.' "The first appellant pay the respondents' taxed costs of the motion."]