Apache Northwest Pty Ltd v Newcrest Mining Limited (No 2) [2009] FCAFC 58

Apache Northwest Pty Ltd v Newcrest Mining Limited (No 2) [2009] FCAFC 58

The Full Court did not intend its earlier costs order to cover steps taken by the successful applicant to comply with the preliminary discovery order; the issue had not been drawn to the Court's attention at the appeal hearing when submissions on costs should generally have been made, and this was not a case warranting another course. The application to vary the costs order was therefore dismissed with no order as to costs.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 May 2009
Procedural Posture
Application to Vary Costs Order on Appeal / Full Court Reasons and Order on Application to Vary Costs Orders Made on 31 March 2009
Outcome
Application dismissed with no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
['costs Orders' 'application to Vary Costs Order' 'preliminary Discovery' 'appeal Procedure']
['practice and Procedure'] ['costs Orders' 'application to Vary Costs Order' 'preliminary Discovery' 'appeal Procedure']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application to Vary Costs Order on Appeal / Full Court Reasons and Order on Application to Vary Costs Orders Made on 31 March 2009

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the costs order made by the Full Court on 31 March 2009 should be varied to cover the applicant's costs in complying with the preliminary discovery order." 'Whether the parties should be confined to submissions made during the hearing of the appeal on questions including costs.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Full Court did not intend its earlier costs order to cover steps taken by the successful applicant to comply with the preliminary discovery order; the issue had not been drawn to the Court's attention at the appeal hearing when submissions on costs should generally have been made, and this was not a case warranting another course. The application to vary the costs order was therefore dismissed with no order as to costs.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with no order as to costs.

Orders

  • ['The application to vary the costs orders made on 31 March 2009 be dismissed with no order as to costs.']