Rotel Co Ltd v Panasales Clearance Centre (Australasia) Pty Ltd (No 2) [2008] FCA 629

Rotel Co Ltd v Panasales Clearance Centre (Australasia) Pty Ltd (No 2) [2008] FCA 629

The applicants/cross-respondents were entitled to their ordinary costs of the 4 October 2007 and 26 November 2007 motions because those motions were occasioned by the respondents' failures to provide particulars and by objectionable material remaining on the Court file. Indemnity costs were not justified for the 26 November 2007 motion because no special reason was identified. Indemnity costs were justified for the 28 November 2007 notice of motion because the interlocutory stages had been unnecessarily delayed by the cross-claimants' inability to plead viable causes of action, with groundless contentions and causes of action bad in law pleaded and then withdrawn.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 May 2008
Procedural Posture
Costs Application Concerning Reserved Costs of Interlocutory Motions and Indemnity Costs / Reasons for Judgment and Orders on Costs After Interlocutory Hearings
Outcome
Costs ordered in favour of the applicants/cross-respondents, with indemnity costs only for the notice of motion dated 28 November 2007.
Legal Topics
['indemnity Costs' 'reserved Costs' 'further and Better Particulars' 'non Compliance With Court Orders' 'amended Cross Claims' 'notices of Motion']
['civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['indemnity Costs' 'reserved Costs' 'further and Better Particulars' 'non Compliance With Court Orders' 'amended Cross Claims' 'notices of Motion']

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 Application Concerning Reserved Costs of Interlocutory Motions and Indemnity Costs / Reasons for Judgment and Orders on Costs After Interlocutory Hearings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicants/cross-respondents should receive costs of and incidental to the notice of motion dated 4 October 2007.' 'Whether the applicants/cross-respondents should receive costs, including indemnity costs, of and incidental to the notice of motion dated 26 November 2007.' "Whether the applicants/cross-respondents should receive indemnity costs in relation to the first and second respondents/cross-claimants' notices of motion dated 15, 22 and 28 November 2007." "Whether the cross-claimants should pay the cross-respondents' costs of the cross-claim on an indemnity basis."]

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants/cross-respondents were entitled to their ordinary costs of the 4 October 2007 and 26 November 2007 motions because those motions were occasioned by the respondents' failures to provide particulars and by objectionable material remaining on the Court file. Indemnity costs were not justified for the 26 November 2007 motion because no special reason was identified. Indemnity costs were justified for the 28 November 2007 notice of motion because the interlocutory stages had been unnecessarily delayed by the cross-claimants' inability to plead viable causes of action, with groundless contentions and causes of action bad in law pleaded and then withdrawn.

Court Disposition

Costs ordered in favour of the applicants/cross-respondents, with indemnity costs only for the notice of motion dated 28 November 2007.

Orders

  • ["The first and second respondents/cross-claimants pay the applicants'/cross-respondents' costs of and incidental to the applicants'/cross-respondents' notice of motion dated 4 October 2007." "The first and second respondents/cross-claimants pay the applicants'/cross-respondents' costs of and incidental to the...