Keynes v Rural Directions Pty Ltd (No 5) [2011] FCA 484

Keynes v Rural Directions Pty Ltd (No 5) [2011] FCA 484

The plaintiffs' application to set aside judgments entered after argument and confirmed on appeal had no prospect of success because they failed to advance a clear and satisfactory explanation for not bringing forward the relevant material before or on the summary judgment application; that should have been known to them, justifying indemnity costs for the third and fourth defendants. It was also appropriate that the third defendant's costs be taxed and paid forthwith given the nature of the interlocutory application and likely delay in resolving the remaining claim. The third defendant's dismissal application was adjourned because counsel for the plaintiffs gave an implicit assurance of...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 May 2011
Procedural Posture
Federal Court Proceeding Involving Applications by the Third and Fourth Defendants for Costs and by the Third Defendant for Dismissal of the Plaintiffs' Proceeding Against It / Interlocutory Applications Following Dismissal of the Plaintiffs' Amended Notice of Motion Filed on 22 December 2010
Outcome
Costs orders made in favour of the third and fourth defendants on an indemnity basis; third defendant's dismissal application adjourned.
Legal Topics
['indemnity Costs' 'taxation and Payment of Costs Forthwith' 'dismissal of Proceeding' 'summary Judgment' 'finality of Litigation' 'pleadings']
['civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['indemnity Costs' 'taxation and Payment of Costs Forthwith' 'dismissal of Proceeding' 'summary Judgment' 'finality of Litigation' '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

Federal Court Proceeding Involving Applications by the Third and Fourth Defendants for Costs and by the Third Defendant for Dismissal of the Plaintiffs' Proceeding Against It / Interlocutory Applications Following Dismissal of the Plaintiffs' Amended Notice of Motion Filed on 22 December 2010

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the plaintiffs should pay the third defendant's costs of the Amended Notice of Motion and predecessor Notice of Motion on an indemnity basis, to be taxed and paid forthwith." "Whether the plaintiffs' proceeding against the third defendant should be dismissed." "Whether the plaintiffs should pay the fourth defendant's costs of the Amended Notice of Motion and predecessor Notice of Motion on an indemnity basis."]

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiffs' application to set aside judgments entered after argument and confirmed on appeal had no prospect of success because they failed to advance a clear and satisfactory explanation for not bringing forward the relevant material before or on the summary judgment application; that should have been known to them, justifying indemnity costs for the third and fourth defendants. It was also appropriate that the third defendant's costs be taxed and paid forthwith given the nature of the interlocutory application and likely delay in resolving the remaining claim. The third defendant's dismissal application was adjourned because counsel for the plaintiffs gave an implicit assurance of...

Court Disposition

Costs orders made in favour of the third and fourth defendants on an indemnity basis; third defendant's dismissal application adjourned.

Orders

  • ["The plaintiffs pay the third defendant's costs of and incidental to the plaintiffs' Amended Notice of Motion filed on 22 December 2010 (dismissed by the Court on 1 April 2011), and its predecessor Notice of Motion filed on 7 December 2010 on an indemnity basis, to be taxed and paid forthwith." "The third...