Bulktec Pty Ltd & Ors v Geothesis Pty Ltd & Ors [1995] FCA 988

Bulktec Pty Ltd & Ors v Geothesis Pty Ltd & Ors [1995] FCA 988

Leave to tax forthwith was refused because, although the applicants had for a time failed to come to grips with the monetary formulation of Claim A and Claim B, their case had always been based on the same alleged defaults, the respondents already had an order for the costs thrown away, and the respondents did not identify prejudice that immediate taxation would ameliorate. The delay in providing security for costs also did not provide a ground for granting leave to tax.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 December 1995
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Tax Costs Thrown Away Before the Proceeding Has Concluded / Interlocutory Application Under O. 62, R. 3 of the Federal Court Rules
Outcome
The respondents were refused leave to tax forthwith their costs thrown away as a result of the applicants' amendments to their statement of claim.
Legal Topics
['taxation of Interlocutory Costs' 'costs Thrown Away by Amendments' 'leave to Tax Costs Before Conclusion of Proceeding' 'security for Costs']
['civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['taxation of Interlocutory Costs' 'costs Thrown Away by Amendments' 'leave to Tax Costs Before Conclusion of Proceeding' 'security for Costs']

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 for Leave to Tax Costs Thrown Away Before the Proceeding Has Concluded / Interlocutory Application Under O. 62, R. 3 of the Federal Court Rules

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the respondents should have leave under O. 62, r. 3 of the Federal Court Rules to tax costs thrown away as a result of amendments to the applicants' statement of claim before the proceeding has concluded." "Whether the applicants' changes to the quantification of damages and delay in providing security for costs justified departure from the general rule that interlocutory costs are taxed after the entire proceedings have concluded."]

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to tax forthwith was refused because, although the applicants had for a time failed to come to grips with the monetary formulation of Claim A and Claim B, their case had always been based on the same alleged defaults, the respondents already had an order for the costs thrown away, and the respondents did not identify prejudice that immediate taxation would ameliorate. The delay in providing security for costs also did not provide a ground for granting leave to tax.

Court Disposition

The respondents were refused leave to tax forthwith their costs thrown away as a result of the applicants' amendments to their statement of claim.

Orders

  • ["The respondents are refused leave to tax forthwith their costs thrown away as a result of the applicants' amendments to their statement of claim."]