Sanders v Glev Franchises Pty Ltd [2003] FCA 11

Sanders v Glev Franchises Pty Ltd [2003] FCA 11

Although the respondents' late informative pleading of reasonable grounds in June 2000 was not in accordance with the good conduct of litigation, in the circumstances it did not unreasonably prolong the proceeding; the applicants had time to consider the amendments, themselves made significant later pleading changes, discovery and witness statements continued during the hearing, and responsibility for overall delay could not be allocated primarily to the respondents. There was therefore no proper basis to depart from the ordinary rule that the successful respondents receive their costs, including reserved costs.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 January 2003
Procedural Posture
Costs Determination in Proceeding Alleging Misrepresentations in Negotiations Prior to Making of a Franchise Agreement / After Reasons for Judgment Proposing Dismissal of the Application; Written Submissions on Costs and Disposition of Cross Claim
Outcome
Application dismissed; applicants ordered to pay the respondents' costs of the proceeding, including reserved costs, to be taxed in default of agreement.
Legal Topics
['discretion to Award Costs' 'ordinary Rule That Costs Follow the Event' 'reserved Costs' 'late Pleading of Reasonable Grounds Defence' 'delay and Prejudice in Proceedings']
['costs' 'civil Procedure' 'misrepresentation' 'franchising'] ['discretion to Award Costs' 'ordinary Rule That Costs Follow the Event' 'reserved Costs' 'late Pleading of Reasonable Grounds Defence' 'delay and Prejudice in Proceedings']

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 Proceeding Alleging Misrepresentations in Negotiations Prior to Making of a Franchise Agreement / After Reasons for Judgment Proposing Dismissal of the Application; Written Submissions on Costs and Disposition of Cross Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Court should depart from the ordinary rule that costs follow the event after the respondents succeeded in having the application dismissed.' "Whether the respondents' late pleading of reasonable grounds in relation to future matters or late evidence justified making no order as to costs or reducing costs." 'Whether delay between commencement of the proceeding and trial, and any prejudice arising from that delay, justified departure from the ordinary costs order.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although the respondents' late informative pleading of reasonable grounds in June 2000 was not in accordance with the good conduct of litigation, in the circumstances it did not unreasonably prolong the proceeding; the applicants had time to consider the amendments, themselves made significant later pleading changes, discovery and witness statements continued during the hearing, and responsibility for overall delay could not be allocated primarily to the respondents. There was therefore no proper basis to depart from the ordinary rule that the successful respondents receive their costs, including reserved costs.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; applicants ordered to pay the respondents' costs of the proceeding, including reserved costs, to be taxed in default of agreement.

Orders

  • ['The application dated 6 November 1992 be dismissed.' "The applicants pay the respondents' costs of the proceeding brought by them (including reserved costs), such costs to be taxed in default of agreement."]