Clarence City Council v Commonwealth of Australia [2019] FCA 1721

Clarence City Council v Commonwealth of Australia [2019] FCA 1721

There was no sufficient basis to make the carve-out orders sought by the councils because the lessees had successfully defeated the claims on standing, the councils did not contradict the lessees' principal submissions that the defences and cross-claims were not separate events and could not readily be disentangled, and the lessees' reply submissions that the amendments and cross-claims went to standing and jurisdiction were accepted.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 October 2019
Procedural Posture
Costs / On the Papers After Dismissal of Both Proceedings for Lack of Standing
Outcome
In each proceeding, the applicant was ordered to pay the second respondent's costs, including the costs of the second respondent's cross-claim against the Commonwealth.
Legal Topics
['usual Order as to Costs' 'costs of Cross Claims' 'separate Events' 'standing to Seek Declaratory Relief']
['civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['usual Order as to Costs' 'costs of Cross Claims' 'separate Events' 'standing to Seek Declaratory Relief']

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 / On the Papers After Dismissal of Both Proceedings for Lack of Standing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the applicants should pay the second respondents' costs of the proceedings." 'Whether costs thrown away by amended defences, costs of accord and satisfaction and estoppel defences, and costs of the cross-claims should be carved out from the costs order.' "Whether the second respondents' cross-claims and amended defences should be treated as separate events for costs purposes."]

Ratio Decidendi

There was no sufficient basis to make the carve-out orders sought by the councils because the lessees had successfully defeated the claims on standing, the councils did not contradict the lessees' principal submissions that the defences and cross-claims were not separate events and could not readily be disentangled, and the lessees' reply submissions that the amendments and cross-claims went to standing and jurisdiction were accepted.

Court Disposition

In each proceeding, the applicant was ordered to pay the second respondent's costs, including the costs of the second respondent's cross-claim against the Commonwealth.

Orders

  • ["In each proceeding, the applicant pay the second respondent's costs of the proceeding, including the costs of the second respondent's cross-claim against the first respondent."]