Re The Honourable Wilcox, Murray, A Judge of the Federal Court of Australia Ex Parte Venture Industries Pty Ltd & Ors [1996] FCA 1132

Re The Honourable Wilcox, Murray, A Judge of the Federal Court of Australia Ex Parte Venture Industries Pty Ltd & Ors [1996] FCA 1132

The abuse of process by way of inordinate and inexcusable delay in making the application for prohibition and certiorari, which led to lengthy and costly proceedings in the Supreme Court, constitutes a special feature warranting indemnity costs. The applicants are ordered to indemnify the ACCC for its costs, except those that are unreasonable in amount or unreasonably incurred.

Parties
Applicants: Venture Industries Pty Ltd, Harry Kioussis and Penny Kiouss; Second Respondent: Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC); Third, Fourth and Fifth Respondents: Collings Construction Co. Pty Ltd, June Maude Collings and Wayne Ronald Collings
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 December 1996
Procedural Posture
Application for Prerogative Writs / Costs Determination Following Refusal of Application
Outcome
Application for indemnity costs granted for ACCC, refused for Collings.
Legal Topics
Costs, Indemnity Costs, Abuse of Process, Prerogative Writs
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Costs Indemnity Costs Abuse of Process Prerogative Writs

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 6 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Venture Industries Pty Ltd, Harry Kioussis and Penny Kiouss

Applicants

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC)

Second Respondent

Collings Construction Co. Pty Ltd, June Maude Collings and Wayne Ronald Collings

Third, Fourth and Fifth Respondents

Procedural Posture

Application for Prerogative Writs / Costs Determination Following Refusal of Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether costs should be awarded on an indemnity basis following a refused application for prerogative writs under s.75(v) of the Constitution
  2. 2 Whether delay and abuse of process justify indemnity costs
  3. 3 Appropriate form of order for indemnity costs

Ratio Decidendi

The abuse of process by way of inordinate and inexcusable delay in making the application for prohibition and certiorari, which led to lengthy and costly proceedings in the Supreme Court, constitutes a special feature warranting indemnity costs. The applicants are ordered to indemnify the ACCC for its costs, except those that are unreasonable in amount or unreasonably incurred.

Court Disposition

Application for indemnity costs granted for ACCC, refused for Collings.

Orders

  • The prosecutors pay the second respondent's (ACCC's) costs on a basis that such costs include all costs except those unreasonable in amount or unreasonably incurred, thus indemnifying ACCC.
  • The third, fourth and fifth respondents bear their own costs.