Hill v Zhang (No 2) [2019] FCA 1649

Hill v Zhang (No 2) [2019] FCA 1649

Indemnity costs from 11 September 2019 were appropriate because the respondents had offered the applicants an opportunity to replead without paying costs thrown away and had earlier raised detailed security for costs concerns, but the applicants did not adequately engage with those matters. Immediate taxation and payment were appropriate because the security for costs issue was discrete and the proceedings were stayed pending security and would effectively begin again after repleading, creating an indefinite and potentially significant delay before finalisation.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 October 2019
Procedural Posture
Application for Costs of an Interlocutory Hearing / Determined on the Papers
Outcome
The respondents' costs application was granted substantially in the form sought.
Legal Topics
['indemnity Costs' 'security for Costs' 'costs Thrown Away' 'taxation and Immediate Payment of Costs' 'striking Out of Pleading']
['costs' 'civil Procedure' 'commercial and Corporations'] ['indemnity Costs' 'security for Costs' 'costs Thrown Away' 'taxation and Immediate Payment of Costs' 'striking Out of Pleading']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application for Costs of an Interlocutory Hearing / Determined on the Papers

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the applicants should jointly and severally pay the respondents' costs of and incidental to the interlocutory application partly on an indemnity basis from 11 September 2019." "Whether the respondents' costs thrown away arising from the striking out of the applicants' pleading should be included." 'Whether the costs should be taxed and payable immediately under r 40.13 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth).']

Ratio Decidendi

Indemnity costs from 11 September 2019 were appropriate because the respondents had offered the applicants an opportunity to replead without paying costs thrown away and had earlier raised detailed security for costs concerns, but the applicants did not adequately engage with those matters. Immediate taxation and payment were appropriate because the security for costs issue was discrete and the proceedings were stayed pending security and would effectively begin again after repleading, creating an indefinite and potentially significant delay before finalisation.

Court Disposition

The respondents' costs application was granted substantially in the form sought.

Orders

  • ["The first and second applicant, jointly and severally, pay the respondents' costs of and incidental to the interlocutory application on a party and party basis to 11 September 2019 and thereafter on an indemnity basis, including the costs thrown away arising from the striking out of the applicants' pleading."...