Roberts-Smith v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Limited (No 2) [2019] FCA 1626

Roberts-Smith v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Limited (No 2) [2019] FCA 1626

The respondents and Person 17 were required to satisfy the Court for orders under s 37AF, and the applicant's opposition was not so substantial as to warrant an award of costs against him; accordingly, each party and Person 17 should bear their own costs.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 October 2019
Procedural Posture
Defamation / Determination of Costs for Interlocutory Application
Outcome
Each party and Person 17 bear their own costs of the interlocutory application dated 9 October 2018.
Legal Topics
['costs' 'suppression Orders' 'interlocutory Applications']
['civil Procedure'] ['costs' 'suppression Orders' 'interlocutory Applications']

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
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Defamation / Determination of Costs for Interlocutory Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Who should bear the costs of interlocutory applications relating to suppression orders in concurrent defamation proceedings']

Ratio Decidendi

The respondents and Person 17 were required to satisfy the Court for orders under s 37AF, and the applicant's opposition was not so substantial as to warrant an award of costs against him; accordingly, each party and Person 17 should bear their own costs.

Court Disposition

Each party and Person 17 bear their own costs of the interlocutory application dated 9 October 2018.

Orders

  • ['Each party and Person 17 bear their own costs of the interlocutory application dated 9 October 2018.']