MasterCard International Incorporated v Reserve Bank of Australia [2003] FCA 1489

MasterCard International Incorporated v Reserve Bank of Australia [2003] FCA 1489

The Court held that, although the general rule is that costs follow the event, special circumstances existed between MasterCard and RBA justifying no order as to costs. These included premature and erroneous assertions by RBA, MasterCard’s resulting perceived dilemma, and RBA’s late clarification of its position. As for Edgar Dunn, being in the position of any unsuccessful respondent, an order for costs was made against it as submissions helpful to the Court did not negate its liability for costs.

Parties
Applicant/first Cross Respondent: MasterCard International Incorporated; Respondent/cross Claimant: Reserve Bank of Australia; Second Cross Respondent: Edgar, Dunn & Company Pty Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 December 2003
Procedural Posture
Costs Application / Post Judgment Costs Order
Outcome
Costs of the Reserve Bank of Australia on the cross-claim and of this hearing for costs be paid by the second cross-respondent. No order as to costs between applicant/first cross-respondent and respondent/cross-claimant.
Legal Topics
Costs, Costs Orders, Departure From General Rule
Practice and Procedure Costs Costs Orders Departure From General Rule

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MasterCard International Incorporated

Applicant/first Cross Respondent

Reserve Bank of Australia

Respondent/cross Claimant

Edgar, Dunn & Company Pty Limited

Second Cross Respondent

Procedural Posture

Costs Application / Post Judgment Costs Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether costs should follow the event as between applicant/first cross-respondent and respondent/cross-claimant
  2. 2 Whether special circumstances justified departure from the general rule as to costs
  3. 3 Which party should bear costs with respect to the second cross-respondent

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that, although the general rule is that costs follow the event, special circumstances existed between MasterCard and RBA justifying no order as to costs. These included premature and erroneous assertions by RBA, MasterCard’s resulting perceived dilemma, and RBA’s late clarification of its position. As for Edgar Dunn, being in the position of any unsuccessful respondent, an order for costs was made against it as submissions helpful to the Court did not negate its liability for costs.

Court Disposition

Costs of the Reserve Bank of Australia on the cross-claim and of this hearing for costs be paid by the second cross-respondent. No order as to costs between applicant/first cross-respondent and respondent/cross-claimant.

Orders

  • The costs of the Reserve Bank of Australia on the cross-claim and of this hearing for costs be paid by the second cross-respondent.
  • No order as to costs as between MasterCard International Incorporated and Reserve Bank of Australia on the application or cross-claim, nor as to the costs of this hearing.