Citrus Queensland Pty Ltd v Sunstate Orchards Pty Ltd (No 11) [2009] FCA 590

Citrus Queensland Pty Ltd v Sunstate Orchards Pty Ltd (No 11) [2009] FCA 590

Mrs Tracy was successful on the principal issue, namely whether she was liable for non-party costs, and was entitled to her reserved costs and a substantial costs order. However, the circumstances did not justify indemnity costs: the claim was not shown to have been doomed from the outset, misconduct or collateral motives were not established, and party and party costs were adequate compensation. Because Mrs Tracy raised a jurisdictional issue without notice, which required further submissions and on which the first and second respondents succeeded, a 15% discount was appropriate. The first and second respondents were therefore ordered to pay 85% of Mrs Tracy's costs of the notice of...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 June 2009
Procedural Posture
Costs Decision on Notice of Motion Seeking Non Party Costs / Determination of Costs Following Dismissal of Notice of Motion
Outcome
The first and second respondents were ordered to pay 85% of Mrs Tracy's costs of the notice of motion, including all reserved costs, on a party and party basis; indemnity costs were refused.
Legal Topics
['non Party Costs' 'indemnity Costs' 'party and Party Costs' 'reserved Costs' 'apportionment of Costs' 'costs Discretion']
['civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['non Party Costs' 'indemnity Costs' 'party and Party Costs' 'reserved Costs' 'apportionment of Costs' 'costs Discretion']

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 Decision on Notice of Motion Seeking Non Party Costs / Determination of Costs Following Dismissal of Notice of Motion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether Mrs Tracy was entitled to costs of the notice of motion after the first and second respondents' motion for non-party costs was dismissed." "Whether Mrs Tracy's costs should be awarded on an indemnity basis." 'Whether reserved costs from the hearings of 8 December 2008 and 20 February 2009 should be costs of the motion or should follow the event.' 'Whether an apportionment or discount of costs was justified because the first and second respondents succeeded on the jurisdictional issue.']

Ratio Decidendi

Mrs Tracy was successful on the principal issue, namely whether she was liable for non-party costs, and was entitled to her reserved costs and a substantial costs order. However, the circumstances did not justify indemnity costs: the claim was not shown to have been doomed from the outset, misconduct or collateral motives were not established, and party and party costs were adequate compensation. Because Mrs Tracy raised a jurisdictional issue without notice, which required further submissions and on which the first and second respondents succeeded, a 15% discount was appropriate. The first and second respondents were therefore ordered to pay 85% of Mrs Tracy's costs of the notice of...

Court Disposition

The first and second respondents were ordered to pay 85% of Mrs Tracy's costs of the notice of motion, including all reserved costs, on a party and party basis; indemnity costs were refused.

Orders

  • ["The first and second respondents being the applicants on the notice of motion pay 85% of Mrs Tracy's costs of the notice of motion, including all reserved costs, on a party and party basis."]