Gloucester Shire Council v Fitch Ratings, Inc (No 3) [2017] FCA 553

Gloucester Shire Council v Fitch Ratings, Inc (No 3) [2017] FCA 553

Gloucester had to seek the Court's indulgence to amend its pleading and, although ultimately successful in obtaining leave to amend and defeating Fitch's applications, Gloucester was not entitled to costs of the interlocutory applications. Fitch's opposition to the amendment was not unreasonable, given the deficiencies and unclear nature of multiple versions of Gloucester's proposed pleading and unsatisfactory evidence explaining delay. Accordingly, the costs of the interlocutory applications should be the respondents' costs in the cause, and applicants should pay the respondents' costs 'thrown away' by reason of the amendment.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 May 2017
Procedural Posture
Costs Application After Interlocutory Applications Regarding Summary Dismissal and Amendment of Pleadings / Costs Determination Following Interlocutory Orders
Outcome
Applicants to pay respondents' costs thrown away due to amendment. Costs of interlocutory applications to be respondents' costs in the cause.
Legal Topics
['costs' 'interlocutory Applications' 'pleadings Amendment' 'summary Dismissal']
['civil Procedure'] ['costs' 'interlocutory Applications' 'pleadings Amendment' 'summary Dismissal']

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 After Interlocutory Applications Regarding Summary Dismissal and Amendment of Pleadings / Costs Determination Following Interlocutory Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Who should bear the costs of interlocutory applications regarding summary dismissal and amendment of pleadings?' 'Whether costs should follow the event in this context?' 'If the applicants, having sought leave to amend, should pay costs.' 'Whether respondents acted unreasonably in opposing the amendment application.']

Ratio Decidendi

Gloucester had to seek the Court's indulgence to amend its pleading and, although ultimately successful in obtaining leave to amend and defeating Fitch's applications, Gloucester was not entitled to costs of the interlocutory applications. Fitch's opposition to the amendment was not unreasonable, given the deficiencies and unclear nature of multiple versions of Gloucester's proposed pleading and unsatisfactory evidence explaining delay. Accordingly, the costs of the interlocutory applications should be the respondents' costs in the cause, and applicants should pay the respondents' costs 'thrown away' by reason of the amendment.

Court Disposition

Applicants to pay respondents' costs thrown away due to amendment. Costs of interlocutory applications to be respondents' costs in the cause.

Orders

  • ["The applicants pay the respondents' costs thrown away as a result of the applicants being granted leave to file the Further Amended Statement of Claim." "The costs of and associated with the respondents' amended interlocutory application dated August 2016 and the applicants' interlocutory applications dated 14...