Backo v Australian Competition & Consumer Commission [2005] FCAFC 89

Backo v Australian Competition & Consumer Commission [2005] FCAFC 89

The purported appeal was incompetent and leave to appeal was refused because a single judge had no power to alter the method of costs recovery ordered by the Full Court, and in any event the interlocutory orders caused no irremedial prejudice since the applicants could pursue taxation; however, leave was granted in respect of the primary judge's costs order and that order was set aside.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 May 2005
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal / Full Court on Appeal From a Single Judge of the Federal Court of Australia
Outcome
Purported notice of appeal dismissed as incompetent; leave to appeal refused except as to the costs order, for which leave was granted and the costs order set aside; no order for costs of the application.
Legal Topics
['leave to Appeal' 'interlocutory Orders' 'taxation of Costs' 'lump Sum Costs' 'power of a Single Judge to Alter Full Court Costs Orders']
['civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['leave to Appeal' 'interlocutory Orders' 'taxation of Costs' 'lump Sum Costs' 'power of a Single Judge to Alter Full Court Costs 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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Appeal / Full Court on Appeal From a Single Judge of the Federal Court of Australia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether a single judge of the Federal Court had power under O 62 r 4 of the Federal Court Rules or otherwise to entertain a notice of motion seeking lump sum costs in a manner different from costs orders made by a Full Court.' "Whether leave to appeal was required because the primary judge's orders were interlocutory." 'Whether leave to appeal should be granted where the applicants remained able to enforce the Full Court costs orders by taxation.' "Whether the primary judge's costs order on the notice of motion should be set aside."]

Ratio Decidendi

The purported appeal was incompetent and leave to appeal was refused because a single judge had no power to alter the method of costs recovery ordered by the Full Court, and in any event the interlocutory orders caused no irremedial prejudice since the applicants could pursue taxation; however, leave was granted in respect of the primary judge's costs order and that order was set aside.

Court Disposition

Purported notice of appeal dismissed as incompetent; leave to appeal refused except as to the costs order, for which leave was granted and the costs order set aside; no order for costs of the application.

Orders

  • ['The purported notice of appeal filed 24 December 2004 for which leave is sought be dismissed as incompetent.' 'The application for leave to appeal from the orders of Kiefel J of 3 December 2004 be refused, save that in respect of the orders for costs, leave be granted and the order for costs be set aside.' 'The...