Nunagin Holdings Pty Ltd v Evertop Investments Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 1165

Nunagin Holdings Pty Ltd v Evertop Investments Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 1165

The Court refused to make the interlocutory costs payable forthwith because it could not find that substantial delay occurred without involvement of the respondents; the respondents had consented to adjournments of hearings which may have enabled the proceedings to advance, so the evidence did not support exercising the discretion under O 62 r 3 in favour of payment forthwith.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 August 2007
Procedural Posture
Civil Proceedings; Interlocutory Costs and Directions / Directions Hearing Concerning Whether Costs of Respondents' Notices of Motion Dated 8 January 2007 and Costs Thrown Away by Amendments to Statements of Claim Should Be Payable Forthwith
Outcome
The respondents' notices of motion were dismissed and the applicants were ordered to pay relevant costs in any event, but the respondents' request that those costs be payable forthwith was refused.
Legal Topics
['interlocutory Costs' 'costs Payable Forthwith' 'amendment of Statements of Claim' 'strike Out Notices of Motion' 'directions' 'discovery']
['civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['interlocutory Costs' 'costs Payable Forthwith' 'amendment of Statements of Claim' 'strike Out Notices of Motion' 'directions' 'discovery']

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

Civil Proceedings; Interlocutory Costs and Directions / Directions Hearing Concerning Whether Costs of Respondents' Notices of Motion Dated 8 January 2007 and Costs Thrown Away by Amendments to Statements of Claim Should Be Payable Forthwith

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the applicants should pay the respondents' costs of the notices of motion dated 8 January 2007, including costs thrown away by amendment of the statements of claim, forthwith under O 62 r 3 of the Federal Court Rules." 'Whether the circumstances of the pleadings amendments and procedural delay justified departure from the usual position that taxation of interlocutory costs awaits conclusion of the principal proceeding or further order.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court refused to make the interlocutory costs payable forthwith because it could not find that substantial delay occurred without involvement of the respondents; the respondents had consented to adjournments of hearings which may have enabled the proceedings to advance, so the evidence did not support exercising the discretion under O 62 r 3 in favour of payment forthwith.

Court Disposition

The respondents' notices of motion were dismissed and the applicants were ordered to pay relevant costs in any event, but the respondents' request that those costs be payable forthwith was refused.

Orders

  • ["In WAD 308, WAD 309 and WAD 310, the respondents' notice of motion dated 8 January 2007 was dismissed." 'In each proceeding, the proposed amended statement of claim filed stood as the amended statement of claim and service was dispensed with.' 'Timetable orders were made for requests for further and better...