Elevate Brandpartners Ltd v Hammond (No 3) [2019] FCA 1788

Elevate Brandpartners Ltd v Hammond (No 3) [2019] FCA 1788

Because Zak Hammond was removed as a respondent and the proceeding was in effect discontinued against him, there was no reason to deny him his costs, except for costs already ordered to be borne by him. For the remaining respondents, most amendments arose from undertakings given during the proceeding, placing the case outside the usual circumstances for amendment costs; justice was best served by making their thrown away costs costs in the cause.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 October 2019
Procedural Posture
Costs Thrown Away by Amendments / Determination of Reserved Costs Questions Arising From the Applicants' Amended Statement of Claim and Further Amended Originating Application
Outcome
Applicants ordered to pay Zak Hammond's costs of the proceeding, excluding costs he was ordered to bear himself; costs of the first, second and fourth respondents thrown away by the amendments ordered to be costs in the cause.
Legal Topics
['costs Thrown Away by Amendments' 'costs in the Cause' 'discontinuance Against a Respondent' 'undertakings' 'amended Pleadings']
['costs' 'civil Procedure' 'commercial and Corporations'] ['costs Thrown Away by Amendments' 'costs in the Cause' 'discontinuance Against a Respondent' 'undertakings' 'amended Pleadings']

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 Thrown Away by Amendments / Determination of Reserved Costs Questions Arising From the Applicants' Amended Statement of Claim and Further Amended Originating Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the applicants should pay Zak Hammond's costs after amendments removed him from the proceeding." 'Whether the costs of Linda Hammond, Allen Hammond and Dream Bandits thrown away by the amendments should be paid by the applicants or be costs in the cause.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because Zak Hammond was removed as a respondent and the proceeding was in effect discontinued against him, there was no reason to deny him his costs, except for costs already ordered to be borne by him. For the remaining respondents, most amendments arose from undertakings given during the proceeding, placing the case outside the usual circumstances for amendment costs; justice was best served by making their thrown away costs costs in the cause.

Court Disposition

Applicants ordered to pay Zak Hammond's costs of the proceeding, excluding costs he was ordered to bear himself; costs of the first, second and fourth respondents thrown away by the amendments ordered to be costs in the cause.

Orders

  • ["With regard to the costs thrown away by the applicants' Further Amended Originating Application and Amended Statement of Claim filed on 27 September 2019 pursuant to leave granted by orders on 25 September 2019: (a) the applicants are to pay the costs of the proceeding of the third respondent, Zak Hammond,...