Polar Aviation Pty Ltd v Civil Aviation Safety Authority (No 3) [2010] FCA 514

Polar Aviation Pty Ltd v Civil Aviation Safety Authority (No 3) [2010] FCA 514

Given the evenly balanced nature of the parties' success on distinct major issues, including the applicants succeeding on the jurisdictional issue and the respondents succeeding on the substantive application, the appropriate order is that there be no order as to costs, with each party to bear its own costs.

Parties
First Applicant: Polar Aviation Pty Ltd; Second Applicant: Clark Andrew Butson; First Respondent: Civil Aviation Safety Authority; Second Respondent: Terrence Farquharson; Third Respondent: Garry Presneill; Fourth Respondent: Robert Collins; Fifth Respondent: Jim Marcolin; Sixth Respondent: Peter John; Seventh Respondent: Alan Cook
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 May 2010
Procedural Posture
Application for Declaration and for Leave to Commence Proceeding Out of Time / Costs Determination Following Final Orders
Outcome
No order as to costs
Legal Topics
Costs, Jurisdiction, Limitation of Actions
Civil Procedure Costs Jurisdiction Limitation of Actions

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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Polar Aviation Pty Ltd

First Applicant

Clark Andrew Butson

Second Applicant

Civil Aviation Safety Authority

First Respondent

Terrence Farquharson

Second Respondent

Garry Presneill

Third Respondent

Robert Collins

Fourth Respondent

Jim Marcolin

Fifth Respondent

Peter John

Sixth Respondent

Alan Cook

Seventh Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Declaration and for Leave to Commence Proceeding Out of Time / Costs Determination Following Final Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether costs should be awarded to either party where the outcome was evenly balanced and each party succeeded on a major issue

Ratio Decidendi

Given the evenly balanced nature of the parties' success on distinct major issues, including the applicants succeeding on the jurisdictional issue and the respondents succeeding on the substantive application, the appropriate order is that there be no order as to costs, with each party to bear its own costs.

Court Disposition

No order as to costs

Orders

  • There be no order as to costs in the proceeding, including the respondents' motion filed on 20 October 2009.