Felkro Nominees Pty Ltd (in liq) v Commonwealth of Australia [1999] FCA 514

Felkro Nominees Pty Ltd (in liq) v Commonwealth of Australia [1999] FCA 514

The appropriate costs order was that the costs of all parties of and incidental to the respondents' motions be costs in the cause. Although the respondents failed to obtain dismissal or a permanent stay and most hearing time concerned issues on which they failed, their challenge to the authority of the applicants' solicitors was reasonably made on the information then available, the relevant circumstances only became clear through argument and evidence, the applicants' earlier disclosure contributed to the adjourned hearing, and the respondents succeeded in obtaining security for costs.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 April 1999
Procedural Posture
Federal Court Civil Proceeding; Reasons for Judgment as to Costs / Interlocutory Costs Determination Following Respondents' Motions on Notice Dated 16 March 1998 and 9 April 1998
Outcome
Order of 16 December 1998 amended; costs of all parties of and incidental to the respondents' motions on notice dated 16 March 1998 and 9 April 1998 to be costs in the cause.
Legal Topics
['costs' 'costs in the Cause' 'security for Costs' 'permanent Stay' 'authority to Commence or Continue Proceedings' 'leave to Proceed Against Company in Liquidation']
['civil Procedure' 'corporations Law'] ['costs' 'costs in the Cause' 'security for Costs' 'permanent Stay' 'authority to Commence or Continue Proceedings' 'leave to Proceed Against Company in Liquidation']

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

Federal Court Civil Proceeding; Reasons for Judgment as to Costs / Interlocutory Costs Determination Following Respondents' Motions on Notice Dated 16 March 1998 and 9 April 1998

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the respondents should pay the applicants' costs of and incidental to the respondent's motion on notice dated 16 March 1998 rather than those costs being costs in the cause." "Whether the earlier costs order should be varied to include costs of the respondents' further motion on notice dated 9 April 1998." 'Whether it was appropriate to order costs in the cause where the respondents failed on dismissal or stay grounds but succeeded in obtaining security for costs.']

Ratio Decidendi

The appropriate costs order was that the costs of all parties of and incidental to the respondents' motions be costs in the cause. Although the respondents failed to obtain dismissal or a permanent stay and most hearing time concerned issues on which they failed, their challenge to the authority of the applicants' solicitors was reasonably made on the information then available, the relevant circumstances only became clear through argument and evidence, the applicants' earlier disclosure contributed to the adjourned hearing, and the respondents succeeded in obtaining security for costs.

Court Disposition

Order of 16 December 1998 amended; costs of all parties of and incidental to the respondents' motions on notice dated 16 March 1998 and 9 April 1998 to be costs in the cause.

Orders

  • ['That the Order of Ryan J of 16 December 1998 be amended by deleting paragraph 3 and substituting: "3. That the costs of all parties of and incidental to the respondents\' motions on notice dated 16 March 1998 and 9 April 1998 be costs in the cause."']