Danthanarayana v GR8 Constructions Pty Ltd (No 2) [2012] FCA 250

Danthanarayana v GR8 Constructions Pty Ltd (No 2) [2012] FCA 250

The applicants' application to vary the costs order was refused because the builder had established a prima facie case that $250,000 was due under the building contract and secured by an equitable charge at the relevant time; the interlocutory application in question was considered on its merits, and the applicants lost.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 March 2012
Procedural Posture
Application to Vary Costs Order / Post Judgment Costs Determination
Outcome
Application to vary costs order refused
Legal Topics
['costs' 'equitable Charge' 'caveat' 'building Contract']
['civil Procedure'] ['costs' 'equitable Charge' 'caveat' 'building Contract']

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

Application to Vary Costs Order / Post Judgment Costs Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether costs order made should be varied' 'Whether costs should be reserved pending final determination']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants' application to vary the costs order was refused because the builder had established a prima facie case that $250,000 was due under the building contract and secured by an equitable charge at the relevant time; the interlocutory application in question was considered on its merits, and the applicants lost.

Court Disposition

Application to vary costs order refused

Orders

  • ['Application to vary costs order is refused; no alteration to previously made costs order.']