Lowes Park P/L v. Headlam, C.B. & Ors [1994] FCA 865

Lowes Park P/L v. Headlam, C.B. & Ors [1994] FCA 865

Because the cross-claim had been filed and served but was not pursued and was to be dismissed, the costs order should distinguish between respondents' costs of the application, excluding any increase caused by the cross-claim, and the cross-respondent's costs referable to the institution of the cross-claim, payable by the cross-claimant.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 November 1994
Procedural Posture
Application and Cross Claim / Form of Orders Following Judgment Delivered on 30 September 1994; No Oral Hearing
Outcome
The application and cross-claim were dismissed, interlocutory orders were discharged, and costs orders were made.
Legal Topics
['short Minutes of Orders' 'dismissal of Application' 'dismissal of Cross Claim' 'costs of Cross Claim' 'discharge of Interlocutory Orders']
['civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['short Minutes of Orders' 'dismissal of Application' 'dismissal of Cross Claim' 'costs of Cross Claim' 'discharge of Interlocutory Orders']

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

Application and Cross Claim / Form of Orders Following Judgment Delivered on 30 September 1994; No Oral Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['What orders should be made following judgment delivered on 30 September 1994.' 'Whether the costs consequences of a cross-claim filed and served but not pursued at the hearing should be taken into account in formulating the costs order.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because the cross-claim had been filed and served but was not pursued and was to be dismissed, the costs order should distinguish between respondents' costs of the application, excluding any increase caused by the cross-claim, and the cross-respondent's costs referable to the institution of the cross-claim, payable by the cross-claimant.

Court Disposition

The application and cross-claim were dismissed, interlocutory orders were discharged, and costs orders were made.

Orders

  • ['The application be dismissed.' 'The cross-claim be dismissed.' 'Any interlocutory orders be discharged.' 'The costs of the respondents of and incidental to the application (except to the extent that these costs may have been increased by the bringing of the cross-claim) be paid by Charles Barry Headlam, such costs...