Fraser v Australian Securities & Investments Commission, In the Matter of Lanepoint Enterprises Pty Ltd (Receivers And Managers Appointed) [2007] FCAFC 208

Fraser v Australian Securities & Investments Commission, In the Matter of Lanepoint Enterprises Pty Ltd (Receivers And Managers Appointed) [2007] FCAFC 208

The appellants were entitled to their costs of the proceedings before French J because the application was doomed to failure and, if properly argued, would have been dismissed with costs. However, no further costs order should be made for the proceedings before Siopis J or the appeal, and the costs of the proceeding before Siopis J should lie where they fall. The appellants should also recover their costs of the written submissions as to costs filed on 19 June 2007.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 December 2007
Procedural Posture
Appeal From a Single Judge of the Federal Court of Australia / Costs Judgment After Substantive Judgment
Outcome
Second respondent ordered to pay the appellants' costs of the proceedings before French J and their costs of written submissions as to costs filed on 19 June 2007; no other costs order made.
Legal Topics
['costs of Appeals' 'costs of Proceedings Below' 'appellate Costs Discretion' 'opportunity to Be Heard on Costs']
['civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['costs of Appeals' 'costs of Proceedings Below' 'appellate Costs Discretion' 'opportunity to Be Heard on 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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Appeal From a Single Judge of the Federal Court of Australia / Costs Judgment After Substantive Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the appellants should have their costs of the proceedings before French J.' 'Whether the appellants should have their costs of the proceedings before Siopis J and of the appeal from Siopis J.' "Whether the second respondent should pay the appellants' costs of written submissions as to costs filed on 19 June 2007."]

Ratio Decidendi

The appellants were entitled to their costs of the proceedings before French J because the application was doomed to failure and, if properly argued, would have been dismissed with costs. However, no further costs order should be made for the proceedings before Siopis J or the appeal, and the costs of the proceeding before Siopis J should lie where they fall. The appellants should also recover their costs of the written submissions as to costs filed on 19 June 2007.

Court Disposition

Second respondent ordered to pay the appellants' costs of the proceedings before French J and their costs of written submissions as to costs filed on 19 June 2007; no other costs order made.

Orders

  • ["The second respondent pay the appellants' costs of the proceedings before French J and their costs of the written submissions as to costs filed on 19 June 2007, such costs to be taxed in default of agreement."]