Frigger v Banning (No 4) [2017] FCA 900

Frigger v Banning (No 4) [2017] FCA 900

The Court refused to vary the 13 April 2016 costs order because the order was made in open court and any issue about its terms could and should have been raised then; there was no apparent common misunderstanding that the costs were intended to be payable forthwith; the respondents' long delay in seeking variation militated against variation; and the later order that costs of the applicants' variation application be costs in the cause supported the view that costs in the security for costs proceeding should be payable at the conclusion of the overall matter.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 August 2017
Procedural Posture
Practice and Procedure Application for Variation of Costs Order in Security for Costs Proceedings / Determined on the Papers
Outcome
The respondents' application for variation of the costs order was dismissed.
Legal Topics
['security for Costs' 'variation of Costs Order' 'interlocutory Costs' 'costs Payable Forthwith']
['practice and Procedure' 'costs' 'commercial and Corporations'] ['security for Costs' 'variation of Costs Order' 'interlocutory Costs' 'costs Payable Forthwith']

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

Practice and Procedure Application for Variation of Costs Order in Security for Costs Proceedings / Determined on the Papers

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the costs order made on 13 April 2016 should be varied so that the respondents' costs of the security for costs application are payable forthwith." "Whether the respondents' delay and the circumstances of the earlier costs orders justified variation of the costs order."]

Ratio Decidendi

The Court refused to vary the 13 April 2016 costs order because the order was made in open court and any issue about its terms could and should have been raised then; there was no apparent common misunderstanding that the costs were intended to be payable forthwith; the respondents' long delay in seeking variation militated against variation; and the later order that costs of the applicants' variation application be costs in the cause supported the view that costs in the security for costs proceeding should be payable at the conclusion of the overall matter.

Court Disposition

The respondents' application for variation of the costs order was dismissed.

Orders

  • ["The respondents' application dated 17 February 2017 for variation of the costs order made 13 April 2016 be refused."]