Jackson v Citimark Japan Pty Ltd [2008] FCA 786

Jackson v Citimark Japan Pty Ltd [2008] FCA 786

The applicants no longer wished to proceed, no notice of discontinuance had been filed, the effect of discontinuance under O 22 r 2(1)(b) was not entirely clear, and the applicants' failure to comply with Court directions provided a proper basis for dismissal. Although the procedural history was unfortunate, prior costs orders had addressed defaults and there was no sufficient basis for indemnity costs, so the proceeding was dismissed with ordinary costs payable by the applicants.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 May 2008
Procedural Posture
Federal Court Proceeding / Applicants Sought to Discontinue; Respondents Sought Dismissal and Indemnity Costs
Outcome
Proceeding dismissed; applicants ordered to pay respondents' costs on the ordinary basis.
Legal Topics
['discontinuance' 'dismissal of Proceeding' 'indemnity Costs' 'failure to Comply With Court Directions']
['civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['discontinuance' 'dismissal of Proceeding' 'indemnity Costs' 'failure to Comply 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

Federal Court Proceeding / Applicants Sought to Discontinue; Respondents Sought Dismissal and Indemnity Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicants could discontinue the proceeding under O 22 r 2(1)(b) of the Federal Court Rules.' 'Whether the respondents should receive costs on an indemnity basis rather than ordinary costs.' 'Whether the proceeding should be dismissed rather than discontinued.']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants no longer wished to proceed, no notice of discontinuance had been filed, the effect of discontinuance under O 22 r 2(1)(b) was not entirely clear, and the applicants' failure to comply with Court directions provided a proper basis for dismissal. Although the procedural history was unfortunate, prior costs orders had addressed defaults and there was no sufficient basis for indemnity costs, so the proceeding was dismissed with ordinary costs payable by the applicants.

Court Disposition

Proceeding dismissed; applicants ordered to pay respondents' costs on the ordinary basis.

Orders

  • ['The proceeding be dismissed.' "The applicants pay the respondents' costs of the proceeding."]