AgriWealth Capital Limited v Australian Financial Complaints Authority Limited (No 2) [2023] FCAFC 128

AgriWealth Capital Limited v Australian Financial Complaints Authority Limited (No 2) [2023] FCAFC 128

The costs order was varied only to remove any liability for the second respondent's costs because the second respondent was inactive and did not seek costs. The appellants were not relieved from paying the first respondent's costs of the jurisdiction issue because that issue had to be determined before the appeal could proceed, the first respondent made detailed submissions that were accepted, and it was not appropriate to depart from the usual position that costs follow the event.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 August 2023
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application to Amend a Costs Order After Dismissal of an Appeal / Costs Variation Application
Outcome
Interlocutory application allowed in part and otherwise dismissed; costs order varied in relation to the second respondent only.
Legal Topics
['variation of Costs Orders' 'costs Following the Event' 'jurisdiction Issue Raised by the Court' 'inactive Submitting Respondent']
['costs' 'federal Court Procedure'] ['variation of Costs Orders' 'costs Following the Event' 'jurisdiction Issue Raised by the Court' 'inactive Submitting Respondent']

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

Interlocutory Application to Amend a Costs Order After Dismissal of an Appeal / Costs Variation Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the costs order made on 28 July 2023 should be varied so that the appellants pay only the first respondent's costs and no order as to costs be made between the appellants and the second respondent." "Whether the appellants should be relieved from paying the first respondent's costs associated with the issue of the Federal Court's jurisdiction."]

Ratio Decidendi

The costs order was varied only to remove any liability for the second respondent's costs because the second respondent was inactive and did not seek costs. The appellants were not relieved from paying the first respondent's costs of the jurisdiction issue because that issue had to be determined before the appeal could proceed, the first respondent made detailed submissions that were accepted, and it was not appropriate to depart from the usual position that costs follow the event.

Court Disposition

Interlocutory application allowed in part and otherwise dismissed; costs order varied in relation to the second respondent only.

Orders

  • ["Order 2 of the Order dated 28 July 2023 be varied so that it states: The appellants pay the first respondent's costs of the appeal and, as between the appellants and the second respondent, there be no order as to costs." 'The interlocutory application dated 31 July 2023 is otherwise dismissed.' "The appellants pay...