Sharif v Vitruvian Investments Pty Ltd (No 2) [2023] FCA 619

Sharif v Vitruvian Investments Pty Ltd (No 2) [2023] FCA 619

The Court was not persuaded that costs should be payable forthwith or that lump sum assessment should occur prior to judgment. There was insufficient justification to depart from the usual rule under r 40.13; cost issues can be addressed at the conclusion of proceedings, and efficiency and set-off considerations favour postponement.

Parties
Plaintiff: Ahmad Walid Obaid Sharif; First Defendant: Vitruvian Investments Pty Ltd (ACN 630 548 846); Second Defendant: Jonathan Charles Gregory; Third Defendant: J & S Gregory Pty Ltd (ACN 163 712 598); Fourth Defendant: VFORMTRAIN Pty Ltd (ACN 641 497 323)
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 June 2023
Procedural Posture
Costs Application in Ongoing Federal Court Proceedings / Post Interlocutory, After Expedited Trial, Pending Reserved Judgment
Outcome
Application for forthwith payment of costs refused; directions for provision of costs material made
Legal Topics
Costs of Interlocutory Applications, Lump Sum Costs Assessment, Timing of Costs Orders
Costs Costs of Interlocutory Applications Lump Sum Costs Assessment Timing of Costs 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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ahmad Walid Obaid Sharif

Plaintiff

Vitruvian Investments Pty Ltd (ACN 630 548 846)

First Defendant

Jonathan Charles Gregory

Second Defendant

J & S Gregory Pty Ltd (ACN 163 712 598)

Third Defendant

VFORMTRAIN Pty Ltd (ACN 641 497 323)

Fourth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Costs Application in Ongoing Federal Court Proceedings / Post Interlocutory, After Expedited Trial, Pending Reserved Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether costs of interlocutory application should be payable forthwith
  2. 2 Whether lump sum costs assessment should be ordered

Ratio Decidendi

The Court was not persuaded that costs should be payable forthwith or that lump sum assessment should occur prior to judgment. There was insufficient justification to depart from the usual rule under r 40.13; cost issues can be addressed at the conclusion of proceedings, and efficiency and set-off considerations favour postponement.

Court Disposition

Application for forthwith payment of costs refused; directions for provision of costs material made

Orders

  • The application for costs to be paid forthwith is refused.
  • Parties to file and serve by 23 June 2023 statements of legal costs and disbursements with breakdowns.