Alstom Power Limited v Eraring Energy [2009] FCA 681

Alstom Power Limited v Eraring Energy [2009] FCA 681

Balancing the facts that the applicant was unreasonably put to the expense of an application due to the respondent's stance, but ultimately failed in the underlying claim, the interests of justice are best met by making no order as to costs; each party should bear its own costs.

Parties
Applicant: Alstom Power Limited; First Respondent: Eraring Energy; Second Respondent: Pacific Power (Subsidiary No 1) Pty Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 June 2009
Procedural Posture
Application for Pre Action Discovery / Judgment on Reserved Costs Application After Completion of Arbitration
Outcome
No order as to costs; each party to bear its own costs of the application.
Legal Topics
Pre Action Discovery, Costs, Misleading and Deceptive Conduct, Arbitration and Court Proceedings, Confidentiality of Arbitral Proceedings
Civil Procedure Arbitration Competition and Consumer Law Pre Action Discovery Costs Misleading and Deceptive Conduct Arbitration and Court Proceedings Confidentiality of Arbitral Proceedings

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alstom Power Limited

Applicant

Eraring Energy

First Respondent

Pacific Power (Subsidiary No 1) Pty Limited

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Pre Action Discovery / Judgment on Reserved Costs Application After Completion of Arbitration

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant should have its costs of the pre-action discovery application in circumstances where claims were not brought in the Federal Court and failed in arbitration
  2. 2 Appropriateness of pre-action discovery where claims could be pursued in arbitration
  3. 3 Whether documents discovered in arbitration could be used to consider Federal Court action under the Trade Practices Act

Ratio Decidendi

Balancing the facts that the applicant was unreasonably put to the expense of an application due to the respondent's stance, but ultimately failed in the underlying claim, the interests of justice are best met by making no order as to costs; each party should bear its own costs.

Court Disposition

No order as to costs; each party to bear its own costs of the application.

Orders

  • Each party bear its own costs of the application.