Australian Securities Commission v Bell & Ors [1996] FCA 19

The respondents' failure to comply with orders and indications that no defence would be filed justified applicant seeking judgment and costs prior to the filing of defence, but once a defence was filed, costs should follow the event and be borne by the applicant for subsequent steps.

Jurisdiction: Australia
Judgment Date: 02 February 1996
Procedural Posture: Costs Determination / Post Judgment (costs Apportionment)
Outcome: Costs apportioned; applicant and respondents each ordered to pay specific costs for different periods.
Legal Topics: ['costs' 'apportionment of Costs']

['civil Procedure'] ['costs' 'apportionment of Costs']

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

Procedural Posture

Costs Determination / Post Judgment (costs Apportionment)

Legal Issues

1 ['Whether the general rule as to costs should be displaced based on party conduct' 'Whether apportionment of costs is appropriate in light of conduct before and after defence filed']

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Costs apportioned; applicant and respondents each ordered to pay specific costs for different periods.

Orders

["The respondent pay the applicant's costs incurred in relation to the motion dated 4 October 1995 prior to the filing of the defence on 13 October 1995." "The applicant pay the respondent's costs incurred in relation to the motion dated 4 October 1995 on and after the filing of the defence on 13 October 1995."]