Federal Treasury Enterprise (FKP) Sojuzplodoimport v Spirits International N.V. (No 2) [2007] FCAFC 121

Federal Treasury Enterprise (FKP) Sojuzplodoimport v Spirits International N.V. (No 2) [2007] FCAFC 121

The appellants were successful and were entitled to their costs of Spirits' motion and of the appeal, but the abandoned lack of power ground had been raised as a question of substance in written submissions and Spirits had to prepare to meet it. That circumstance justified discounting the ordinary costs order by apportioning costs: Spirits was to pay the appellants' costs except those associated with paragraph 3 of the notice of appeal, while the appellants were to pay Spirits' costs of responding to that ground, with set-off.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 August 2007
Procedural Posture
Costs on Appeal / Full Court Determination of Costs After Appeal From a Single Judge of the Federal Court of Australia
Outcome
Costs apportioned; first respondent to pay appellants' costs of the motion and most appeal costs, with appellants to pay the first respondent's costs of responding to the abandoned ground set out in paragraph 3 of the notice of appeal, set off against the first respondent's liability.
Legal Topics
['costs Follow the Event' 'departure From Ordinary Costs Rule' 'apportionment of Costs' 'abandoned Ground of Appeal' 'discovery by Non Party Foreign State']
['civil Procedure' 'costs' 'appellate Procedure'] ['costs Follow the Event' 'departure From Ordinary Costs Rule' 'apportionment of Costs' 'abandoned Ground of Appeal' 'discovery by Non Party Foreign State']

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

Costs on Appeal / Full Court Determination of Costs After Appeal From a Single Judge of the Federal Court of Australia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether circumstances justified departure from the ordinary rule that costs follow the event.' 'Whether the costs of the appeal should be apportioned because the appellants abandoned the lack of power ground during the hearing.' "Whether the first respondent should pay the appellants' costs of the motion before the primary judge."]

Ratio Decidendi

The appellants were successful and were entitled to their costs of Spirits' motion and of the appeal, but the abandoned lack of power ground had been raised as a question of substance in written submissions and Spirits had to prepare to meet it. That circumstance justified discounting the ordinary costs order by apportioning costs: Spirits was to pay the appellants' costs except those associated with paragraph 3 of the notice of appeal, while the appellants were to pay Spirits' costs of responding to that ground, with set-off.

Court Disposition

Costs apportioned; first respondent to pay appellants' costs of the motion and most appeal costs, with appellants to pay the first respondent's costs of responding to the abandoned ground set out in paragraph 3 of the notice of appeal, set off against the first respondent's liability.

Orders

  • ["The first respondent pay the appellants' costs of the first respondent's motion before the primary judge." "The first respondent pay the appellants' costs of the appeal other than the appellants' costs of and associated with the ground set out in paragraph 3 of the notice of appeal." "The appellants pay the first...