Wright, C.F. & Anor v. Wheeler Grace & Pierucci Pty Ltd & Ors [1988] FCA 295

Wright, C.F. & Anor v. Wheeler Grace & Pierucci Pty Ltd & Ors [1988] FCA 295

Because the applicants succeeded against the first respondent, the first respondent was to pay the applicants' costs except for 15 March 1988. Because the applicants failed completely against the second, third and fourth respondents, they were to pay those respondents one-third of the respondents' costs treated as one set, excluding 15 March 1988. Although the applicants failed against the fifth respondent as a matter of law, his conduct was central to the liability attributed to the first respondent, so no order was made as to his costs except for 15 March 1988. The case was suitable for senior counsel.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 May 1988
Procedural Posture
Federal Court Action Involving Trade Practices Act Liability / Supplementary Reasons for Judgment on Question of Costs
Outcome
Costs orders made and the case certified as suitable for senior counsel.
Legal Topics
['costs' 'apportionment of Costs' 'senior Counsel Certification' 's.75 B of the Trade Practices Act']
['civil Procedure' 'trade Practices'] ['costs' 'apportionment of Costs' 'senior Counsel Certification' 's.75 B of the Trade Practices Act']

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 Action Involving Trade Practices Act Liability / Supplementary Reasons for Judgment on Question of Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['How costs should be apportioned given the applicants succeeded against the first respondent but failed against the second, third, fourth and fifth respondents.' 'Whether costs should be ordered in favour of the fifth respondent, whose conduct fixed the first respondent with liability but who escaped liability under s.75B of the Trade Practices Act.' 'Whether the case was suitable for senior counsel.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because the applicants succeeded against the first respondent, the first respondent was to pay the applicants' costs except for 15 March 1988. Because the applicants failed completely against the second, third and fourth respondents, they were to pay those respondents one-third of the respondents' costs treated as one set, excluding 15 March 1988. Although the applicants failed against the fifth respondent as a matter of law, his conduct was central to the liability attributed to the first respondent, so no order was made as to his costs except for 15 March 1988. The case was suitable for senior counsel.

Court Disposition

Costs orders made and the case certified as suitable for senior counsel.

Orders

  • ["The first respondent is to pay the applicants' costs of the action, save for costs incurred in respect of the hearing on 15 March 1988." "The applicants are to pay the respondents' costs of the action on 15 March." "The applicants are to pay to the second, third and fourth respondents one-third of all the...