Liberty Financial Pty Ltd v Scott [2003] FCA 293

Liberty Financial Pty Ltd v Scott [2003] FCA 293

The applicants failed to identify circumstances warranting departure from the general principle against separating issues at trial, and their evidence in support of separation was largely conjectural. The application was also brought prematurely. In those circumstances there was no reason to depart from the ordinary rule that costs follow the event, so the applicants were required to pay the respondents' costs of and incidental to the notice of motion.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 April 2003
Procedural Posture
Practice and Procedure – Costs / Costs Determination After Dismissal of Applicants' Notice of Motion Seeking Separate Trial of Liability and Quantum
Outcome
The applicants were ordered to pay the respondents' costs of and incidental to the notice of motion filed on 28 February 2003.
Legal Topics
['costs Following Unsuccessful Interlocutory Motion' 'separate Trial of Liability and Quantum' 'costs Follow the Event']
['practice and Procedure' 'costs'] ['costs Following Unsuccessful Interlocutory Motion' 'separate Trial of Liability and Quantum' 'costs Follow the Event']

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 / Costs Determination After Dismissal of Applicants' Notice of Motion Seeking Separate Trial of Liability and Quantum

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the applicants should pay the respondents' costs of and incidental to the notice of motion filed on 28 February 2003 after the motion for separate trial of liability and quantum was dismissed." 'Whether there was a sufficient basis to depart from the ordinary rule that costs follow the event.']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants failed to identify circumstances warranting departure from the general principle against separating issues at trial, and their evidence in support of separation was largely conjectural. The application was also brought prematurely. In those circumstances there was no reason to depart from the ordinary rule that costs follow the event, so the applicants were required to pay the respondents' costs of and incidental to the notice of motion.

Court Disposition

The applicants were ordered to pay the respondents' costs of and incidental to the notice of motion filed on 28 February 2003.

Orders

  • ["The applicants pay the respondents' costs of and incidental to the notice of motion filed on 28 February 2003."]