Costa Vraca Pty Ltd (ACN 005 913 431) v Bell Regal Pty Ltd (ACN 076 871 648) [2004] FCAFC 60

Costa Vraca Pty Ltd (ACN 005 913 431) v Bell Regal Pty Ltd (ACN 076 871 648) [2004] FCAFC 60

The Hazera respondents were unsuccessful on a self-contained jurisdictional issue which they had raised and which was apparent from the outset. Although the Full Court had upheld the result below on a ground not argued at first instance and had expressed doubts about aspects of the primary Judge's reasoning, those circumstances did not justify making the costs costs in the cause. The appropriate order was that the Hazera respondents pay the applicants' costs, but not that the costs be taxed and paid forthwith before determination of the actions at first instance.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 March 2004
Procedural Posture
Costs Ruling on Application for Leave to Appeal / After Refusal of Leave to Appeal From Dismissal of Motions to Set Aside Service or Stay Proceedings
Outcome
The Hazera respondents were ordered to pay the applicants' costs; the Court declined to order that those costs be taxed and paid forthwith.
Legal Topics
['service of Originating Process Out of the Jurisdiction' 'leave to Appeal' 'costs Following the Event' 'jurisdictional Challenge' 'stay of Proceedings']
['civil Procedure' 'costs' 'private International Law'] ['service of Originating Process Out of the Jurisdiction' 'leave to Appeal' 'costs Following the Event' 'jurisdictional Challenge' 'stay of Proceedings']

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 Ruling on Application for Leave to Appeal / After Refusal of Leave to Appeal From Dismissal of Motions to Set Aside Service or Stay Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Hazera respondents should pay the applicants' costs after leave to appeal was refused." "Whether costs should instead be costs in the cause because leave was refused on grounds not argued or raised at first instance and the Full Court had expressed doubts about aspects of the primary Judge's reasoning." "Whether the applicants' costs should be taxed and paid forthwith."]

Ratio Decidendi

The Hazera respondents were unsuccessful on a self-contained jurisdictional issue which they had raised and which was apparent from the outset. Although the Full Court had upheld the result below on a ground not argued at first instance and had expressed doubts about aspects of the primary Judge's reasoning, those circumstances did not justify making the costs costs in the cause. The appropriate order was that the Hazera respondents pay the applicants' costs, but not that the costs be taxed and paid forthwith before determination of the actions at first instance.

Court Disposition

The Hazera respondents were ordered to pay the applicants' costs; the Court declined to order that those costs be taxed and paid forthwith.

Orders

  • ["The second and third respondents pay the applicant's costs of and incidental to the motion on notice dated 11 March 2003, such costs to be taxed in default of agreement."]