Saizeriya Co Ltd & Anor v Peregrine Management Group Ltd Pty & Ors [2005] FCA 1174

Saizeriya Co Ltd & Anor v Peregrine Management Group Ltd Pty & Ors [2005] FCA 1174

The applicants were required to pay forthwith the first and second respondents' strike-out motion costs because the earlier costs order had left those respondents out of pocket for a lengthy period and the applicants did not oppose payment forthwith subject to immediate taxation. Costs were refused for the 14 April 2005 consent orders because mediation evidence was inadmissible, wilful concealment was not established, causation and additional costs were not shown, and the entered consent orders provided no order as to costs. Costs were refused for the 6 June 2005 case management conference because such a conference would have occurred in any event and increased costs were not established....

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 August 2005
Procedural Posture
Application for Costs in Respect of Interlocutory Steps in a Federal Court Proceeding / Interlocutory Costs Determination After Strike Out Motion, Consent Timetable Orders, Case Management Conference, and Application to Extend Preparation Timetable and Vary the Trial Date
Outcome
The first and second respondents' costs application was allowed in part. Costs were ordered for the strike-out motion and the 24 June 2005 application, including indemnity costs for the first and second respondents on the 24 June 2005 application, but costs were refused for the 14 April 2005 consent orders and the 6...
Legal Topics
['interlocutory Costs' 'indemnity Costs' 'gross Sum Costs' 'taxation of Costs' 'costs Payable Forthwith' 'mediation Confidentiality' 'variation of Interlocutory Orders']
['practice and Procedure' 'costs'] ['interlocutory Costs' 'indemnity Costs' 'gross Sum Costs' 'taxation of Costs' 'costs Payable Forthwith' 'mediation Confidentiality' 'variation of Interlocutory Orders']

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

Application for Costs in Respect of Interlocutory Steps in a Federal Court Proceeding / Interlocutory Costs Determination After Strike Out Motion, Consent Timetable Orders, Case Management Conference, and Application to Extend Preparation Timetable and Vary the Trial Date

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the applicants should pay the first and second respondents' costs of the strike-out application forthwith and whether the respondents should be entitled to immediate taxation of those costs." 'Whether the first and second respondents should receive costs in respect of the consent orders of 14 April 2005 varying the timetable for trial.' 'Whether costs should be ordered in respect of the case management conference before Registrar Efthim on 6 June 2005.' "Whether the applicants should pay the respondents' costs of the 24 June 2005 application to extend the timetable for preparation of witness statements and vary the trial date." 'Whether any costs should be assessed as a gross sum rather than taxed costs.' "Whether the first and second respondents' costs of the 24 June 2005 application should be paid on an indemnity basis."]

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants were required to pay forthwith the first and second respondents' strike-out motion costs because the earlier costs order had left those respondents out of pocket for a lengthy period and the applicants did not oppose payment forthwith subject to immediate taxation. Costs were refused for the 14 April 2005 consent orders because mediation evidence was inadmissible, wilful concealment was not established, causation and additional costs were not shown, and the entered consent orders provided no order as to costs. Costs were refused for the 6 June 2005 case management conference because such a conference would have occurred in any event and increased costs were not established....

Court Disposition

The first and second respondents' costs application was allowed in part. Costs were ordered for the strike-out motion and the 24 June 2005 application, including indemnity costs for the first and second respondents on the 24 June 2005 application, but costs were refused for the 14 April 2005 consent orders and the 6...

Orders

  • ['The first and second respondents prepare a bill of costs in respect of the motion, notice of which was dated 11 November 2003, and the application on 24 June 2005 to extend the timetable for the preparation of witness statements and vary the date fixed for trial, such bill of costs to be taxed as soon as...