Lingard v Commonwealth Bank Officers Superannuation Corporation Pty Limited (No 2) [2024] FCA 536

Lingard v Commonwealth Bank Officers Superannuation Corporation Pty Limited (No 2) [2024] FCA 536

Because Ms Lingard was wholly unsuccessful in the appeal and there was no disentitling conduct by AFCA or the Ogdens, nor any contextual feature sufficient to displace the ordinary rule that costs follow the event, the Court ordered Ms Lingard to pay the second, third and fourth respondents' costs of the appeal to be taxed, if not agreed, on the standard basis.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 May 2024
Procedural Posture
Appeal From a Decision of the Australian Financial Complaints Authority; Costs / Post Judgment Costs Determination After Dismissal of Appeal
Outcome
The second, third and fourth respondents were awarded their costs on the standard basis; no costs order was made for the first respondent.
Legal Topics
['costs Follow the Event' 'standard Basis Costs' 'self Represented Litigant' 'discretion to Award Costs']
['commercial and Corporations' 'corporations and Corporate Insolvency' 'costs'] ['costs Follow the Event' 'standard Basis Costs' 'self Represented Litigant' 'discretion to Award Costs']

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

Appeal From a Decision of the Australian Financial Complaints Authority; Costs / Post Judgment Costs Determination After Dismissal of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the second, third and fourth respondents should receive costs on the standard basis after the applicant was wholly unsuccessful in the appeal.' 'Whether any contextual features, including the applicant being self-represented or alleged conduct of the respondents, justified departing from the ordinary rule that costs follow the event.' 'Whether the successful respondents engaged in any disentitling conduct in relation to costs.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because Ms Lingard was wholly unsuccessful in the appeal and there was no disentitling conduct by AFCA or the Ogdens, nor any contextual feature sufficient to displace the ordinary rule that costs follow the event, the Court ordered Ms Lingard to pay the second, third and fourth respondents' costs of the appeal to be taxed, if not agreed, on the standard basis.

Court Disposition

The second, third and fourth respondents were awarded their costs on the standard basis; no costs order was made for the first respondent.

Orders

  • ["The applicant pay the second, third and fourth respondents' costs of the appeal to be taxed, if not agreed, on the standard basis."]