Incitec Ltd v Alkimos Shipping Corporation [2004] FCA 839

Incitec Ltd v Alkimos Shipping Corporation [2004] FCA 839

Although Alkimos obtained leave to cross-claim, a costs-following-the-event order was not just because Alkimos was not entirely successful in opposing Hyundai's position, important submissions by Alkimos were rejected, the discretionary judgment was a fine one, and Hyundai did not act unreasonably in seeking to enforce its contractual bargain. Each party should therefore have its costs in the respective cause.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 June 2004
Procedural Posture
Admiralty and Maritime; Practice and Procedure; Costs / Costs Determination After Motions to File and Serve Cross Claims and to Stay Any Such Cross Claims
Outcome
Each party's costs in the respective cause.
Legal Topics
['costs Discretion' 'costs Follow the Event' 'cross Claims' 'stay of Cross Claims' 'exclusive Jurisdiction Clause']
['admiralty and Maritime' 'civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['costs Discretion' 'costs Follow the Event' 'cross Claims' 'stay of Cross Claims' 'exclusive Jurisdiction Clause']

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

Admiralty and Maritime; Practice and Procedure; Costs / Costs Determination After Motions to File and Serve Cross Claims and to Stay Any Such Cross Claims

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['What costs order should be made after leave was granted to Alkimos Shipping Corporation to cross-claim against Hyundai Merchant Marine Co Ltd in the face of an exclusive jurisdiction clause.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although Alkimos obtained leave to cross-claim, a costs-following-the-event order was not just because Alkimos was not entirely successful in opposing Hyundai's position, important submissions by Alkimos were rejected, the discretionary judgment was a fine one, and Hyundai did not act unreasonably in seeking to enforce its contractual bargain. Each party should therefore have its costs in the respective cause.

Court Disposition

Each party's costs in the respective cause.

Orders

  • ["In each of the matters N 303 of 2003 and N 304 of 2003 the costs of Alkimos Shipping Corporation and Hyundai Merchant Marine Co Ltd in the motions to file and serve cross-claims and to stay any such cross-claims be each party's costs in the said proceedings."]