Lanzer v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (No 2) [2021] FCA 1321

Lanzer v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (No 2) [2021] FCA 1321

Justice requires that the costs of the interlocutory application follow the event because the applicants failed to establish a prima facie case, distinguishing the circumstances from those where the balance of convenience alone determines outcome. Therefore, the applicants should pay the first respondent's costs of and incidental to the interlocutory relief application.

Parties
First Applicant: Daniel Lanzer; Second Applicant: Dermatology and Cosmetic Surgery Services Pty Ltd; First Respondent: Australian Broadcasting Corporation; Second Respondent: Justin Nixon; Third Respondent: Lauren Hewish
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 October 2021
Procedural Posture
Costs Application Following Dismissal of Interlocutory Injunction / Post Interlocutory Application; Determination of Costs
Outcome
Applicants ordered to pay first respondent's costs for the interlocutory application.
Legal Topics
Interlocutory Injunctions, Costs Orders, Prima Facie Case
Civil Procedure Interlocutory Injunctions Costs Orders Prima Facie Case

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 2 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Daniel Lanzer

First Applicant

Dermatology and Cosmetic Surgery Services Pty Ltd

Second Applicant

Australian Broadcasting Corporation

First Respondent

Justin Nixon

Second Respondent

Lauren Hewish

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Costs Application Following Dismissal of Interlocutory Injunction / Post Interlocutory Application; Determination of Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether applicants should pay first respondent's costs after dismissal of interlocutory injunction application for failing to establish a prima facie case

Ratio Decidendi

Justice requires that the costs of the interlocutory application follow the event because the applicants failed to establish a prima facie case, distinguishing the circumstances from those where the balance of convenience alone determines outcome. Therefore, the applicants should pay the first respondent's costs of and incidental to the interlocutory relief application.

Court Disposition

Applicants ordered to pay first respondent's costs for the interlocutory application.

Orders

  • The applicants pay the first respondent's costs of and incidental to the applicants' application for interlocutory relief as taxed or agreed.