Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Cassimatis (Costs) [2023] FCA 613

Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Cassimatis (Costs) [2023] FCA 613

The Court held it was functus officio concerning orders 1(a)-(c) of the Interlocutory Application because Dowsett J had already dismissed ASIC's previous application for lump sum costs and explicitly required taxation on a party and party basis. However, in respect of costs orders made by the Full Court on 27 March 2020, the application for a lump sum costs order may proceed before a single judge, as the rules and statute permit such interlocutory orders after appeals.

Parties
Applicant in QUD 574 of 2010, Respondent in QUD 247 of 2018: Australian Securities and Investments Commission; First Respondent in QUD 574 of 2010, First Appellant in QUD 247 of 2018: Emmanuel George Cassimatis; Second Respondent in QUD 574 of 2010, Second Appellant in QUD 247 of 2018: Julie Gladys Cassimatis
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 June 2023
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application for Lump Sum Costs Order / Determination of Preliminary Issues in Costs Application
Outcome
Application dismissed in part, remainder listed for case management hearing
Legal Topics
Lump Sum Costs, Jurisdiction of Court in Costs Determinations, Functus Officio, Delay and Discretionary Considerations in Costs, Appellate Orders and Interlocutory Powers
Civil Procedure Costs Lump Sum Costs Jurisdiction of Court in Costs Determinations Functus Officio Delay and Discretionary Considerations in Costs Appellate Orders and Interlocutory Powers

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 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Australian Securities and Investments Commission

Applicant in QUD 574 of 2010, Respondent in QUD 247 of 2018

Emmanuel George Cassimatis

First Respondent in QUD 574 of 2010, First Appellant in QUD 247 of 2018

Julie Gladys Cassimatis

Second Respondent in QUD 574 of 2010, Second Appellant in QUD 247 of 2018

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application for Lump Sum Costs Order / Determination of Preliminary Issues in Costs Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Court is functus officio regarding lump sum costs orders already determined
  2. 2 Whether the application for a lump sum costs order after earlier orders is competent
  3. 3 Whether the timing of the application renders it out of time or otherwise procedurally improper

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held it was functus officio concerning orders 1(a)-(c) of the Interlocutory Application because Dowsett J had already dismissed ASIC's previous application for lump sum costs and explicitly required taxation on a party and party basis. However, in respect of costs orders made by the Full Court on 27 March 2020, the application for a lump sum costs order may proceed before a single judge, as the rules and statute permit such interlocutory orders after appeals.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed in part, remainder listed for case management hearing

Orders

  • The Interlocutory Application, insofar as it relied on paragraphs 1(a)-(c) of the Application, be dismissed.
  • The remainder of the application be listed for a case management hearing on a date to be advised administratively.