Abigroup Ltd v Network Asset Management Pty Ltd [2003] FCA 537

Abigroup Ltd v Network Asset Management Pty Ltd [2003] FCA 537

The fourth and ninth respondents achieved a measure of success on their pleading complaints, but not all hearings warranted separate interlocutory costs orders. Management hearings were to be treated as the parties' costs in the proceeding, while hearings occasioned by deficiencies in the applicants' pleading were to be paid by the applicants. No order was appropriate for the costs of the misconceived notice of motion or the Padman affidavits as between the applicants and the fourth and ninth respondents.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 April 2003
Procedural Posture
Practice and Procedure; Costs of Interlocutory Applications and Pleadings Motions / Application for Costs in Respect of Various Interlocutory Hearings and a Notice of Motion Filed on 14 May 2002
Outcome
Costs orders made in relation to the notice of motion and interlocutory hearings.
Legal Topics
['costs Discretion' 'interlocutory Applications' 'pleadings' 'strike Out' 'summary Dismissal' 'directions Hearings']
['practice and Procedure' 'costs' 'civil Procedure'] ['costs Discretion' 'interlocutory Applications' 'pleadings' 'strike Out' 'summary Dismissal' 'directions Hearings']

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

Procedural Posture

Practice and Procedure; Costs of Interlocutory Applications and Pleadings Motions / Application for Costs in Respect of Various Interlocutory Hearings and a Notice of Motion Filed on 14 May 2002

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether any order should be made as to the costs of preparing and filing the notice of motion filed on 14 May 2002.' 'Which party should bear the costs of various interlocutory hearings concerning pleading objections and directions.' 'Whether costs associated with affidavits of Eleanor Louise Padman should be ordered as between the applicants and the fourth and ninth respondents.']

Ratio Decidendi

The fourth and ninth respondents achieved a measure of success on their pleading complaints, but not all hearings warranted separate interlocutory costs orders. Management hearings were to be treated as the parties' costs in the proceeding, while hearings occasioned by deficiencies in the applicants' pleading were to be paid by the applicants. No order was appropriate for the costs of the misconceived notice of motion or the Padman affidavits as between the applicants and the fourth and ninth respondents.

Court Disposition

Costs orders made in relation to the notice of motion and interlocutory hearings.

Orders

  • ['There be no order as to the cost of preparing and filing the notice of motion filed on 14 May 2002.' "The applicants pay the costs of the fourth and ninth respondents ('the Moving Respondents') of and incidental to the hearings on 27 June 2002, 26 August 2002 except insofar as that hearing was concerned with the...