Clarence City Council v Commonwealth of Australia (costs) [2024] FCAFC 47

Clarence City Council v Commonwealth of Australia (costs) [2024] FCAFC 47

Ground 1 of the notices of contention was not a discrete issue because the submissions for and against it concerned the proper construction of cl 26.2(a) of the leases, which was also relevant to ground 2 of the grounds of appeal and was dealt with together with the competing arguments on the notices of appeal. The case was therefore not a proper one for apportioning costs by reference to success or failure on a discrete issue, and the appellants should pay the second respondents' costs while the Commonwealth bears its own costs.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 April 2024
Procedural Posture
Costs of Appeal / Determined on the Papers After Dismissal of Appeals
Outcome
In each appeal, the appellant was ordered to pay the second respondent's costs, as taxed or agreed; the Commonwealth was to bear its own costs.
Legal Topics
['costs of Appeal' 'apportionment of Costs on an Issue Basis' 'notices of Contention' 'commercial Contracts, Banking, Finance and Insurance']
['costs' 'commercial and Corporations'] ['costs of Appeal' 'apportionment of Costs on an Issue Basis' 'notices of Contention' 'commercial Contracts, Banking, Finance and Insurance']

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 of Appeal / Determined on the Papers After Dismissal of Appeals

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the unsuccessful appellants should pay the second respondents' costs of the appeals." "Whether the second respondents' costs should be reduced because the airports were unsuccessful on the first ground of their notices of contention." 'Whether ground 1 of the notices of contention was a discrete, clearly dominant or separable issue justifying apportionment of costs.' 'Whether the first respondent, the Commonwealth, should bear its own costs.']

Ratio Decidendi

Ground 1 of the notices of contention was not a discrete issue because the submissions for and against it concerned the proper construction of cl 26.2(a) of the leases, which was also relevant to ground 2 of the grounds of appeal and was dealt with together with the competing arguments on the notices of appeal. The case was therefore not a proper one for apportioning costs by reference to success or failure on a discrete issue, and the appellants should pay the second respondents' costs while the Commonwealth bears its own costs.

Court Disposition

In each appeal, the appellant was ordered to pay the second respondent's costs, as taxed or agreed; the Commonwealth was to bear its own costs.

Orders

  • ["TAD 3 of 2023: The appellant pay the second respondent's costs, as taxed or agreed." "TAD 4 of 2023: The appellant pay the second respondent's costs, as taxed or agreed."]