Baygol Pty Ltd v Huntsman Chemical Co Australia Pty Ltd t/a RMAX [2004] FCA 899

Baygol Pty Ltd v Huntsman Chemical Co Australia Pty Ltd t/a RMAX [2004] FCA 899

The competing considerations regarding responsibility for the costs of the Notice of Motion are equally balanced, with both parties contributing to the failure to reach agreement prior to filing. Therefore, the appropriate order is that there be no order as to costs.

Parties
Applicant/cross Respondent: Baygol Pty Ltd; Respondent/cross Claimant: Huntsman Chemical Company Australia Pty Limited t/a RMAX
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 July 2004
Procedural Posture
Civil / Post Motion Decision (costs Order Following Consent Orders on Procedural Notice of Motion)
Outcome
Application for costs refused.
Legal Topics
Costs, Notice of Motion, Discovery, Affidavit Evidence, Interrogatories
Civil Procedure Costs Notice of Motion Discovery Affidavit Evidence Interrogatories

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Baygol Pty Ltd

Applicant/cross Respondent

Huntsman Chemical Company Australia Pty Limited t/a RMAX

Respondent/cross Claimant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Post Motion Decision (costs Order Following Consent Orders on Procedural Notice of Motion)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Who should bear the costs of the Notice of Motion filed by the respondent on 23 March 2004

Ratio Decidendi

The competing considerations regarding responsibility for the costs of the Notice of Motion are equally balanced, with both parties contributing to the failure to reach agreement prior to filing. Therefore, the appropriate order is that there be no order as to costs.

Court Disposition

Application for costs refused.

Orders

  • Each party will bear its own costs of the Motion and of this costs application.