Abram & Anor v Bank of New Zealand & Anor [1995] FCA 700

Abram & Anor v Bank of New Zealand & Anor [1995] FCA 700

Although the applicants established a breach of duty concerning explanation of the mortgage documents, the central issues were whether the respondents were liable in damages and whether possession should be ordered, and the applicants failed on both. The ordinary costs order should therefore be made, but indemnity or solicitor-client costs were not justified because the applicants' case was not devoid of substance and the result depended in part on the exercise of discretionary powers under the Contracts Review Act 1980 (NSW).

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 September 1995
Procedural Posture
Costs Following Unsuccessful Application Under Trade Practices Act 1974 / Costs After Judgment Delivered on 28 July 1995
Outcome
The applicants were ordered to pay the costs of the first and second respondents.
Legal Topics
['federal Court Costs Discretion' 'costs Following the Event' 'indemnity Costs' 'solicitor Client Costs' 'contracts Review Act 1980 (nsw) Discretionary Powers']
['costs' 'trade Practices' 'contracts Review'] ['federal Court Costs Discretion' 'costs Following the Event' 'indemnity Costs' 'solicitor Client Costs' 'contracts Review Act 1980 (nsw) Discretionary Powers']

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 Following Unsuccessful Application Under Trade Practices Act 1974 / Costs After Judgment Delivered on 28 July 1995

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the applicants should be ordered to pay the respondents' costs." 'Whether no order as to costs should be made because the applicants succeeded on one issue.' "Whether the second respondent's costs should be ordered on an indemnity basis or solicitor-client basis."]

Ratio Decidendi

Although the applicants established a breach of duty concerning explanation of the mortgage documents, the central issues were whether the respondents were liable in damages and whether possession should be ordered, and the applicants failed on both. The ordinary costs order should therefore be made, but indemnity or solicitor-client costs were not justified because the applicants' case was not devoid of substance and the result depended in part on the exercise of discretionary powers under the Contracts Review Act 1980 (NSW).

Court Disposition

The applicants were ordered to pay the costs of the first and second respondents.

Orders

  • ['The applicants pay the costs of the first and second respondents.']