Rafferty v Time 2000 West Pty Ltd (No 8) [2011] FCA 1444

Rafferty v Time 2000 West Pty Ltd (No 8) [2011] FCA 1444

The application to further vary the consent orders made only days earlier was unnecessary as the existing orders already protected the applicants; participation in the application caused Gemhall to incur costs. Minor clarifications to orders were allowed, but this did not justify reserving costs or awarding indemnity costs. As the application was precipitated by the solicitors' oversight rather than any direction by the applicants themselves, the proper order is for the applicants' solicitors to pay Gemhall's costs on a party and party basis.

Parties
First Applicant: Patrick Campbell Rafferty; Second Applicant: Santora Holdings Pty Limited ACN 128 467 550; Third Applicant: Karaville Holdings Pty Limited ACN 009 439 178; First Respondent: Time 2000 West Pty Limited ACN 127 893 270; Second Respondent: Time 2000 Systems (Australia) Pty Limited ACN 127 853 614; Third Respondent: Time 2000 Operations (Australia) Pty Limited ACN 128 700 541; Fourth Respondent: Embleton Limited (A Company Incorporated in Hong Kong); Fifth Respondent: Stephen Gerard Donovan; Sixth Respondent: Madgwicks; Applicant on the Costs Application: Gemhall Holdings Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 November 2011
Procedural Posture
Application to Vary Consent Orders in Pending Proceeding / Hearing and Determination of Interlocutory Application Regarding Variation of Orders and Costs
Outcome
Application to vary orders allowed in limited part; costs awarded.
Legal Topics
Costs, Variation of Consent Orders, Injunctions
Civil Procedure Costs Variation of Consent Orders Injunctions

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

Parties

Patrick Campbell Rafferty

First Applicant

Santora Holdings Pty Limited ACN 128 467 550

Second Applicant

Karaville Holdings Pty Limited ACN 009 439 178

Third Applicant

Time 2000 West Pty Limited ACN 127 893 270

First Respondent

Time 2000 Systems (Australia) Pty Limited ACN 127 853 614

Second Respondent

Time 2000 Operations (Australia) Pty Limited ACN 128 700 541

Third Respondent

Embleton Limited (A Company Incorporated in Hong Kong)

Fourth Respondent

Stephen Gerard Donovan

Fifth Respondent

Madgwicks

Sixth Respondent

Gemhall Holdings Pty Ltd

Applicant on the Costs Application

Procedural Posture

Application to Vary Consent Orders in Pending Proceeding / Hearing and Determination of Interlocutory Application Regarding Variation of Orders and Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether consent orders made on 3 November 2011 should be varied
  2. 2 Who should pay the costs of the application to vary the orders and on what basis

Ratio Decidendi

The application to further vary the consent orders made only days earlier was unnecessary as the existing orders already protected the applicants; participation in the application caused Gemhall to incur costs. Minor clarifications to orders were allowed, but this did not justify reserving costs or awarding indemnity costs. As the application was precipitated by the solicitors' oversight rather than any direction by the applicants themselves, the proper order is for the applicants' solicitors to pay Gemhall's costs on a party and party basis.

Court Disposition

Application to vary orders allowed in limited part; costs awarded.

Orders

  • Paragraph 1(b)(i) of the orders made on 3 November 2011 be amended as specified.
  • Paragraph 1(b)(iii) amended as specified.