Johnson Tiles Pty Ltd v Esso Australia Ltd [2001] FCA 458

Johnson Tiles Pty Ltd v Esso Australia Ltd [2001] FCA 458

Given the mixed outcomes on appeal regarding the orders of 3 March 2000, it is appropriate that half the costs of the appeal as between the Applicants and Esso are Esso's costs in the proceedings. Equivalent apportionment applies to the State Entities and BHP in their respective cross-claims. The Applicants must indemnify the State Entities and Esso as relevant for liability arising under these orders. Costs of the Applicants' 24 December 1999 motion are to be paid by the Applicants, with all questions regarding costs thrown away due to later orders reserved for further determination.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 April 2001
Procedural Posture
Appeal (on Costs in Interlocutory Proceedings) / Post Appeal Judgment on Costs
Outcome
Costs orders made on an apportioned basis, setting aside previous order, with indemnities and future cost questions reserved for determination.
Legal Topics
['costs' 'apportionment of Costs' 'interlocutory Proceedings']
['practice and Procedure'] ['costs' 'apportionment of Costs' 'interlocutory Proceedings']

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

Appeal (on Costs in Interlocutory Proceedings) / Post Appeal Judgment on Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether costs should be apportioned between the parties due to mixed outcomes on appeal' 'Whether the applicants should indemnify other parties for costs incurred by cross-respondents/cross-claimants' "What orders should be made regarding costs of applicants' motion dated 24 December 1999"]

Ratio Decidendi

Given the mixed outcomes on appeal regarding the orders of 3 March 2000, it is appropriate that half the costs of the appeal as between the Applicants and Esso are Esso's costs in the proceedings. Equivalent apportionment applies to the State Entities and BHP in their respective cross-claims. The Applicants must indemnify the State Entities and Esso as relevant for liability arising under these orders. Costs of the Applicants' 24 December 1999 motion are to be paid by the Applicants, with all questions regarding costs thrown away due to later orders reserved for further determination.

Court Disposition

Costs orders made on an apportioned basis, setting aside previous order, with indemnities and future cost questions reserved for determination.

Orders

  • ["Half of the costs of the appeal against the orders of 3 March 2000, as between the Applicants and the Respondents, be the Respondents' costs in the proceedings." "Half of the costs of the appeal by BHP Petroleum (Bass Strait) Pty Ltd against the orders of 3 March 2000, be BHP's costs in the cross claim brought...