Minus v Selth (No 2) [2017] FCA 1233

Minus v Selth (No 2) [2017] FCA 1233

The applicants were not entitled to an extension of time because the notice of estimate was properly issued and given by post to their specified address for service, their non-receipt until after the objection period resulted from their failure to maintain access to or update that address, their explanation for delay was not acceptable, and they failed to show any arguable basis on which the costs estimate would be reduced upon objection.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 October 2017
Procedural Posture
Application for an Extension of Time to File a Notice of Objection to a Costs Estimate and Pay Security Into the Litigants' Fund / Interlocutory Application Deemed Filed and Served After Issue of a Certificate of Taxation
Outcome
The deemed interlocutory application for an extension of time was dismissed, and the applicants were ordered to pay the respondents' costs.
Legal Topics
['notice of Estimate' 'costs Taxation' 'extension of Time' 'address for Service' 'postal Notification' 'procedural Fairness' 'litigants in Person']
['costs' 'practice and Procedure'] ['notice of Estimate' 'costs Taxation' 'extension of Time' 'address for Service' 'postal Notification' 'procedural Fairness' 'litigants in Person']

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 an Extension of Time to File a Notice of Objection to a Costs Estimate and Pay Security Into the Litigants' Fund / Interlocutory Application Deemed Filed and Served After Issue of a Certificate of Taxation

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the notice of estimate was duly given to each party interested in the bill under r 40.20(3) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth).' 'Whether the notice of estimate was defective because it did not separately name each applicant.' 'Whether the word "issue" in r 40.21(1) meant posting, delivery, or receipt of the notice of estimate.' "Whether the applicants should receive an extension of time to file a notice of objection and pay $2,000 into the Litigants' Fund." 'Whether the certificate of taxation made the application futile because it was deemed to be an order of the Court.']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants were not entitled to an extension of time because the notice of estimate was properly issued and given by post to their specified address for service, their non-receipt until after the objection period resulted from their failure to maintain access to or update that address, their explanation for delay was not acceptable, and they failed to show any arguable basis on which the costs estimate would be reduced upon objection.

Court Disposition

The deemed interlocutory application for an extension of time was dismissed, and the applicants were ordered to pay the respondents' costs.

Orders

  • ["The requirement for the applicants to file an interlocutory application for an extension of time within which to file a notice of objection, in accordance with Form 128, and pay into the Litigants' Fund an amount of $2,000 as security for costs of any taxation of the bill, be dispensed with." 'The applicants be...