Global Intertrade Pty Ltd v Adelaide Festival Centre Trust [1999] FCA 1037

Global Intertrade Pty Ltd v Adelaide Festival Centre Trust [1999] FCA 1037

Because there had been no adjudication on the merits, the Court could not make a firm finding that the proposed applicant acted reasonably in bringing the contempt motion, and the proposed respondent's correspondence of 25 March 1999 gave no particular reason to suspect that its solicitors were not genuine in reporting ongoing inquiries. The appropriate order was therefore no order for costs on the proposed applicant's notice of motion of 8 April 1999.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 June 1999
Procedural Posture
Pre Action Discovery Proceeding Involving a Notice of Motion Alleging Contempt for Failure to Comply With Discovery Orders / Reasons for Decision on Costs of the Proposed Applicant's Notice of Motion of 8 April 1999, After the Substantive Contempt Order Was Not Pressed
Outcome
No order for costs on the proposed applicant's notice of motion of 8 April 1999.
Legal Topics
['pre Action Discovery' 'affidavit of Discovery' 'extension of Time to Comply With Orders' 'costs Where There Has Been No Hearing on the Merits' 'reasonableness of Bringing a Motion']
['civil Procedure' 'costs' 'discovery' 'contempt of Court'] ['pre Action Discovery' 'affidavit of Discovery' 'extension of Time to Comply With Orders' 'costs Where There Has Been No Hearing on the Merits' 'reasonableness of Bringing a Motion']

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

Pre Action Discovery Proceeding Involving a Notice of Motion Alleging Contempt for Failure to Comply With Discovery Orders / Reasons for Decision on Costs of the Proposed Applicant's Notice of Motion of 8 April 1999, After the Substantive Contempt Order Was Not Pressed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the proposed applicant should receive the costs of its notice of motion of 8 April 1999 alleging contempt for non-compliance with the order of 25 February 1999.' 'Whether the proposed applicant acted reasonably in bringing the notice of motion when the proposed respondent had indicated further investigations were ongoing and sought additional time.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because there had been no adjudication on the merits, the Court could not make a firm finding that the proposed applicant acted reasonably in bringing the contempt motion, and the proposed respondent's correspondence of 25 March 1999 gave no particular reason to suspect that its solicitors were not genuine in reporting ongoing inquiries. The appropriate order was therefore no order for costs on the proposed applicant's notice of motion of 8 April 1999.

Court Disposition

No order for costs on the proposed applicant's notice of motion of 8 April 1999.

Orders

  • ["There is to be no order for costs on the proposed applicant's notice of motion of 8 April 1999." "Attendances on 19 April, 11 May and 20 May 1999 are to be treated as attendances in respect of the proposed respondent's notice of motion of 9 April 1999, in respect of which the proposed applicant already has an...