Carey v Freehills [2014] FCA 132

Carey v Freehills [2014] FCA 132

The application for lump sum costs was dismissed because the Court was not satisfied a fair determination of the sum payable under the costs order could be arrived at on the available materials, given the complexities of the proceedings and disputes as to costs. The usual process of costs taxation should apply.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 February 2014
Procedural Posture
Costs Application / Costs Order Following Prior Substantive Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
['costs' 'lump Sum Costs' 'discretion Under Federal Court Rules 2011 (cth) Rule 40.02(b)']
['civil Procedure'] ['costs' 'lump Sum Costs' 'discretion Under Federal Court Rules 2011 (cth) Rule 40.02(b)']

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

Costs Application / Costs Order Following Prior Substantive Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether costs should be awarded in a lump sum pursuant to rule 40.02(b) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth)']

Ratio Decidendi

The application for lump sum costs was dismissed because the Court was not satisfied a fair determination of the sum payable under the costs order could be arrived at on the available materials, given the complexities of the proceedings and disputes as to costs. The usual process of costs taxation should apply.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • ['The application for an order that costs be awarded in a lump sum be dismissed.' "The first respondent pay the cross-claimants' costs of this application."]