Pampered Paws Connection Pty Ltd (on its own behalf and in a Representative Capacity) v Pets Paradise Franchising (Qld) Pty Ltd (No 12) [2013] FCA 829

Pampered Paws Connection Pty Ltd (on its own behalf and in a Representative Capacity) v Pets Paradise Franchising (Qld) Pty Ltd (No 12) [2013] FCA 829

The first, second, third and fifth respondents' 1 August 2013 costs submissions would be considered only as a reply to the applicants' costs submissions, not as a basis for an order for costs in favour of those respondents, because they failed to comply with earlier costs directions, did not explain that failure adequately, and made no application for an extension of time.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 August 2013
Procedural Posture
Representative Proceeding / Ruling on Costs Submissions After Final Judgment and Orders
Outcome
The respondents' 1 August 2013 submissions were confined to use as a reply to the applicants' costs submissions and would not be accepted as a basis for costs orders in favour of those respondents; further reasons and costs orders were to be delivered on 28 August 2013.
Legal Topics
['costs Submissions' 'security for Costs' 'intervention' 'compliance With Court Directions']
['civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['costs Submissions' 'security for Costs' 'intervention' 'compliance With Court Directions']

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

Representative Proceeding / Ruling on Costs Submissions After Final Judgment and Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the written submissions of the first, second, third and fifth respondents on costs dated 1 August 2013 should be entertained as an application for costs in their favour or only as a reply to the applicants' costs submissions." "Whether the respondents' failure to comply with earlier costs directions prevented them from seeking costs in their favour."]

Ratio Decidendi

The first, second, third and fifth respondents' 1 August 2013 costs submissions would be considered only as a reply to the applicants' costs submissions, not as a basis for an order for costs in favour of those respondents, because they failed to comply with earlier costs directions, did not explain that failure adequately, and made no application for an extension of time.

Court Disposition

The respondents' 1 August 2013 submissions were confined to use as a reply to the applicants' costs submissions and would not be accepted as a basis for costs orders in favour of those respondents; further reasons and costs orders were to be delivered on 28 August 2013.

Orders

  • []