Pegasus Gold Inc v Bateman Project Engineering Pty Ltd [2000] FCA 201

Pegasus Gold Inc v Bateman Project Engineering Pty Ltd [2000] FCA 201

BKK knew its financial position made Svedala prima facie entitled to security for costs, withheld that information for months, made the relevant admission only shortly before the hearing, and still opposed Svedala's motion. That conduct caused Svedala unnecessary costs and justified an order that BKK pay Svedala's costs of and incidental to the motion, limited to one-third of the costs of attending court on 6 and 7 December 1999. Given the long and complex nature of the proceedings and the need to discourage unnecessarily obstructive conduct, the demands of justice also required leave for Svedala to tax those costs forthwith.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 February 2000
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Costs Application Arising From a Security for Costs Motion in Federal Court Proceedings / After Security for Costs Was Ordered on 15 December 1999; Costs and Leave to Tax Costs Forthwith Determined on 24 February 2000
Outcome
Svedala's costs application was granted, with hearing attendance costs limited to one-third, and leave was granted to proceed to taxation of costs forthwith.
Legal Topics
['security for Costs' 'interlocutory Costs' 'taxation of Costs Forthwith' 'federal Court Rules Order 62 Rule 3(iii)']
['civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['security for Costs' 'interlocutory Costs' 'taxation of Costs Forthwith' 'federal Court Rules Order 62 Rule 3(iii)']

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

Interlocutory Costs Application Arising From a Security for Costs Motion in Federal Court Proceedings / After Security for Costs Was Ordered on 15 December 1999; Costs and Leave to Tax Costs Forthwith Determined on 24 February 2000

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether BKK should pay Svedala's costs of and incidental to the notice of motion filed on 27 September 1999 seeking security for costs." 'Whether Svedala should recover all or only part of its costs of attending court on 6 and 7 December 1999.' 'Whether Svedala should be granted leave under order 62, rule 3(iii) of the Federal Court Rules to proceed to taxation of costs forthwith.']

Ratio Decidendi

BKK knew its financial position made Svedala prima facie entitled to security for costs, withheld that information for months, made the relevant admission only shortly before the hearing, and still opposed Svedala's motion. That conduct caused Svedala unnecessary costs and justified an order that BKK pay Svedala's costs of and incidental to the motion, limited to one-third of the costs of attending court on 6 and 7 December 1999. Given the long and complex nature of the proceedings and the need to discourage unnecessarily obstructive conduct, the demands of justice also required leave for Svedala to tax those costs forthwith.

Court Disposition

Svedala's costs application was granted, with hearing attendance costs limited to one-third, and leave was granted to proceed to taxation of costs forthwith.

Orders

  • ["BKK pay Svedala's costs of and incidental to the notice of motion filed on 27 September, but to include only one-third of Svedala's costs of attending at court on 6 and 7 December 1999." 'BKK to pay the costs forthwith. Svedala be granted leave pursuant to order 62 rule 3(iii) of the Federal Court Rules to proceed...