Coshott v Burke (No 3) [2019] FCAFC 23

Coshott v Burke (No 3) [2019] FCAFC 23

It is practicable and appropriate to make lump sum costs orders in this case. Although the appellants' conduct justifies some reduction, the circumstances do not warrant costs on an indemnity basis for any party. Discounted lump sums are appropriate (at 33% or 25% as detailed), with no discount applied to counsel's fees where properly evidenced. Costs are fixed per respondent in specified sums.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 February 2019
Procedural Posture
Costs Application in Appeal / Post Judgment; Determination of Lump Sum Costs
Outcome
Lump sum costs orders made; applications for indemnity costs refused
Legal Topics
['costs' 'lump Sum Costs Orders' 'indemnity Costs' 'federal Court Procedure']
['civil Procedure'] ['costs' 'lump Sum Costs Orders' 'indemnity Costs' 'federal Court Procedure']

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 in Appeal / Post Judgment; Determination of Lump Sum Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether lump sum costs orders should be made' 'Whether costs should be awarded on an indemnity basis' 'Appropriate discount to apply to lump sum claimed']

Ratio Decidendi

It is practicable and appropriate to make lump sum costs orders in this case. Although the appellants' conduct justifies some reduction, the circumstances do not warrant costs on an indemnity basis for any party. Discounted lump sums are appropriate (at 33% or 25% as detailed), with no discount applied to counsel's fees where properly evidenced. Costs are fixed per respondent in specified sums.

Court Disposition

Lump sum costs orders made; applications for indemnity costs refused

Orders

  • ["The appellants pay the first respondent's costs fixed in the sum of $18,610.17." "The appellants pay the second respondent's costs fixed in the sum of $15,606.55." "The appellants pay the third respondent's costs fixed in the sum of $40,699.58." "The appellants pay the fourth respondent's costs fixed in the sum of...