Ellis v Central Land Council (No 2) [2019] FCAFC 11

Ellis v Central Land Council (No 2) [2019] FCAFC 11

The second respondent and sixth respondent were not awarded separate costs because they adopted the written submissions of the first and fifth respondents and added very little, effectively only addressing whether equity would grant relief if the appeal were upheld; their limited participation did not make it just to order costs in their favour.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 February 2019
Procedural Posture
Costs Determination in an Appeal and Cross Appeal / Consequential Costs Orders After Reasons for Judgment, Determined on the Papers
Outcome
Costs orders made; the second, third, fourth and sixth respondents, being the fourth to seventh cross-respondents, were ordered to bear their own costs of the appeal and cross-appeal.
Legal Topics
['costs of Appeal' 'costs of Cross Appeal' 'notices of Contention' 'limited Participation by Parties']
['costs' 'civil Procedure' 'appellate Procedure'] ['costs of Appeal' 'costs of Cross Appeal' 'notices of Contention' 'limited Participation by Parties']

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 Determination in an Appeal and Cross Appeal / Consequential Costs Orders After Reasons for Judgment, Determined on the Papers

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the second and sixth respondents should be awarded their costs in the appeal and cross-appeal.' "How costs should be awarded following the Court's reasons for judgment published on 24 January 2019."]

Ratio Decidendi

The second respondent and sixth respondent were not awarded separate costs because they adopted the written submissions of the first and fifth respondents and added very little, effectively only addressing whether equity would grant relief if the appeal were upheld; their limited participation did not make it just to order costs in their favour.

Court Disposition

Costs orders made; the second, third, fourth and sixth respondents, being the fourth to seventh cross-respondents, were ordered to bear their own costs of the appeal and cross-appeal.

Orders

  • ["The appellants pay the first and fifth respondents' costs of the appeal, as agreed or assessed." "The cross-appellants pay the first to third cross-respondents' costs of the cross-appeal, as agreed or assessed." 'The second, third, fourth and sixth respondents (who are the fourth to seventh cross-respondents) bear...