Young v Hughes Trueman Pty Ltd (No 3) [2017] FCA 235

Young v Hughes Trueman Pty Ltd (No 3) [2017] FCA 235

The stay applications were dismissed because the High Court show cause application appeared on its face to be misconceived, erroneously drafted and most unlikely to succeed, so its mere existence provided no proper reason to stay the special costs application; additionally, there was no evidence that any legal professional privilege impediment existed or that there were relevant privileged communications preventing the special costs application from proceeding.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 March 2017
Procedural Posture
Applications for Stay of Hearing of Interlocutory Special Costs Application / Interlocutory Stay Applications
Outcome
Applications to stay the special costs application dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['stay of Interlocutory Application' 'special Costs Order Against Solicitors and Unsuccessful Party' 'legal Professional Privilege' 'constitutional Writs' 'jurisdictional Error']
['practice and Procedure' 'costs' 'bankruptcy'] ['stay of Interlocutory Application' 'special Costs Order Against Solicitors and Unsuccessful Party' 'legal Professional Privilege' 'constitutional Writs' 'jurisdictional Error']

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

Applications for Stay of Hearing of Interlocutory Special Costs Application / Interlocutory Stay Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the pending High Court show cause application provided a sufficient basis to stay the special costs application.' 'Whether the asserted possibility of legal professional privilege impeded or compromised opposition to the special costs application so as to justify a stay.' 'Whether the merits and prospects of success of the High Court show cause application should be assessed in deciding the stay applications.']

Ratio Decidendi

The stay applications were dismissed because the High Court show cause application appeared on its face to be misconceived, erroneously drafted and most unlikely to succeed, so its mere existence provided no proper reason to stay the special costs application; additionally, there was no evidence that any legal professional privilege impediment existed or that there were relevant privileged communications preventing the special costs application from proceeding.

Court Disposition

Applications to stay the special costs application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The applications to stay the special costs application be dismissed with costs.' 'The hearing of the special costs application proceed as scheduled on 27 April 2017.' 'The procedural orders for the hearing of the special costs application made on 13 December 2016 be confirmed.']