Baramon Sales Pty Ltd v Goodman Fielder Mills Limited [2001] FCA 1819

Baramon Sales Pty Ltd v Goodman Fielder Mills Limited [2001] FCA 1819

Because the applicant failed on the separately determined covenant validity issues, there was no overlap between those issues and the remaining trial issues, and nothing in the later trial could cast doubt on a costs order made now, Goodman Fielder Mills Limited was entitled to its costs of the questions already tried; however, immediate payment was refused because Goodman Fielder would not suffer prejudice from waiting and any costs award could later be set off if it was unsuccessful at trial.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 December 2001
Procedural Posture
Costs in Split Proceedings Following Separate Determination of Questions Under O 29 of the Federal Court Rules / After Determination of the First Series of Claims and Before Trial of the Remaining Trade Practices Act Causes of Action
Outcome
The first respondent was awarded its costs of the determination of the separate questions, but immediate payment was not ordered.
Legal Topics
['costs of Separate Questions' 'split Proceedings' 'costs Follow the Event' 'discretion to Award Costs']
['civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['costs of Separate Questions' 'split Proceedings' 'costs Follow the Event' 'discretion to Award 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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Costs in Split Proceedings Following Separate Determination of Questions Under O 29 of the Federal Court Rules / After Determination of the First Series of Claims and Before Trial of the Remaining Trade Practices Act Causes of Action

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Goodman Fielder Mills Limited should receive its costs of the separate determination of questions stated under O 29 of the Federal Court Rules.' 'Whether those costs should be paid immediately.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because the applicant failed on the separately determined covenant validity issues, there was no overlap between those issues and the remaining trial issues, and nothing in the later trial could cast doubt on a costs order made now, Goodman Fielder Mills Limited was entitled to its costs of the questions already tried; however, immediate payment was refused because Goodman Fielder would not suffer prejudice from waiting and any costs award could later be set off if it was unsuccessful at trial.

Court Disposition

The first respondent was awarded its costs of the determination of the separate questions, but immediate payment was not ordered.

Orders

  • ["The applicant pay the first respondent's costs of the determination of the questions stated under O 29 of the Federal Court Rules."]