Pedra Holdings Pty Ltd v Westfield Shoppingtown Carousel Pty Ltd (No 2) [2006] FCA 552

Pedra Holdings Pty Ltd v Westfield Shoppingtown Carousel Pty Ltd (No 2) [2006] FCA 552

The strike out applications were legitimately brought and substantially influenced the formulation of all applicants' cases, so the respondents were entitled to costs of those applications as they related to the second, third and fourth applicants. The third and fourth respondents were entitled to costs of the deconsolidation application because it was reasonably brought and withdrawn only after substantive amendments to the pleadings, but the first and second respondents could not recover deconsolidation costs because they had not brought such an application. The second, third and fourth applicants were liable for costs attributable to them on the first and second respondents' security...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 May 2006
Procedural Posture
Costs / Determination of Outstanding Costs on Interlocutory Notices of Motion
Outcome
The second, third and fourth applicants were ordered to pay specified outstanding costs, but no order was made for payment forthwith.
Legal Topics
['outstanding Costs' 'interlocutory Applications' 'strike Out Applications' 'deconsolidation' 'security for Costs' 'pleadings']
['civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['outstanding Costs' 'interlocutory Applications' 'strike Out Applications' 'deconsolidation' 'security for Costs' 'pleadings']

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 / Determination of Outstanding Costs on Interlocutory Notices of Motion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the second, third and fourth applicants should pay outstanding costs of the respondents' strike out applications." "Whether the second, third and fourth applicants should pay outstanding costs associated with the third and fourth respondents' deconsolidation application." "Whether the second, third and fourth applicants should pay costs attributable to them in respect of the first and second respondents' application for security for costs." 'Whether outstanding costs should be payable forthwith.']

Ratio Decidendi

The strike out applications were legitimately brought and substantially influenced the formulation of all applicants' cases, so the respondents were entitled to costs of those applications as they related to the second, third and fourth applicants. The third and fourth respondents were entitled to costs of the deconsolidation application because it was reasonably brought and withdrawn only after substantive amendments to the pleadings, but the first and second respondents could not recover deconsolidation costs because they had not brought such an application. The second, third and fourth applicants were liable for costs attributable to them on the first and second respondents' security...

Court Disposition

The second, third and fourth applicants were ordered to pay specified outstanding costs, but no order was made for payment forthwith.

Orders

  • ["In addition to order 5 of 3 March 2006, the second, third and fourth applicants pay the respondents' costs of the applications to strike out the applicants' statements of claim." "The second, third and fourth applicants pay the third and fourth respondents' costs of the application to deconsolidate." "The second,...