Pascoe, M & Anor v National Futrax Pty Ltd & Ors [1995] FCA 952

Pascoe, M & Anor v National Futrax Pty Ltd & Ors [1995] FCA 952

The fourth and fifth respondents were inappropriately joined because there was no evidence connecting them with the impugned conduct, no relief was pressed or granted against them, and they acted reasonably in defending the proceedings; therefore they were entitled to costs. However, because there was no allegation or evidence of ulterior purpose, the proceedings were brought and concluded urgently, and the matter reached only an interlocutory stage, the circumstances did not warrant departure from the ordinary party and party basis.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 November 1995
Procedural Posture
Costs in Interlocutory Proceeding Arising From Trade Practices Act and Fair Trading Act Claims / Motions by the Fourth and Fifth Respondents for Indemnity Costs After Proceedings Against Them Were Dismissed by Consent
Outcome
Motions allowed; indemnity costs refused; party and party costs awarded to the fourth and fifth respondents.
Legal Topics
['interlocutory Costs' 'indemnity Costs' 'party and Party Costs' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'aiding and Abetting Contraventions']
['costs' 'consumer Protection' 'federal Court Procedure'] ['interlocutory Costs' 'indemnity Costs' 'party and Party Costs' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'aiding and Abetting Contraventions']

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 in Interlocutory Proceeding Arising From Trade Practices Act and Fair Trading Act Claims / Motions by the Fourth and Fifth Respondents for Indemnity Costs After Proceedings Against Them Were Dismissed by Consent

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether costs should be awarded to the fourth and fifth respondents despite no final hearing on the merits.' "Whether the applicants should pay the fourth and fifth respondents' costs on an indemnity basis rather than on a party and party basis." 'Whether the joinder of the fourth and fifth respondents justified departure from the ordinary costs basis.']

Ratio Decidendi

The fourth and fifth respondents were inappropriately joined because there was no evidence connecting them with the impugned conduct, no relief was pressed or granted against them, and they acted reasonably in defending the proceedings; therefore they were entitled to costs. However, because there was no allegation or evidence of ulterior purpose, the proceedings were brought and concluded urgently, and the matter reached only an interlocutory stage, the circumstances did not warrant departure from the ordinary party and party basis.

Court Disposition

Motions allowed; indemnity costs refused; party and party costs awarded to the fourth and fifth respondents.

Orders

  • ["The applicants pay the fourth and fifth respondents' party and party costs of the motions and of the proceedings."]