Charlick Trading Pty Ltd v Australian National Railways Commission [2001] FCA 629

Charlick Trading Pty Ltd v Australian National Railways Commission [2001] FCA 629

Gross sum costs order was appropriate under O 62 r 4(2)(c) of the Federal Court Rules. The Court assessed costs based on what would be allowed on party and party taxation, applying the 'necessary or proper' test. Allowance was made for senior counsel and one junior counsel, accommodation and airfares for senior counsel, but not for additional (interstate) junior counsel. Negotiation costs incurred to agree costs were allowed as necessary or proper. Amounts for disbursements were reduced where not necessary or proper or where insufficient detail was provided.

Parties
Applicant: Charlick Trading Pty Ltd; First Respondent: Australian National Railways Commission; Second Respondent: National Rail Corporation Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 May 2001
Procedural Posture
Costs Application / Post Trial, Costs Determination
Outcome
Gross sum costs order made; costs assessed and ordered payable by applicant to second respondent.
Legal Topics
Gross Sum Costs Order, Party and Party Costs, Allowance for Counsel Fees, Allowance for Interstate Counsel Expenses, Negotiation Costs, Trade Practices Act S 46
Costs Civil Procedure Competition Law Gross Sum Costs Order Party and Party Costs Allowance for Counsel Fees Allowance for Interstate Counsel Expenses Negotiation Costs +1 more

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 6 Authorities cited 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 17
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Charlick Trading Pty Ltd

Applicant

Australian National Railways Commission

First Respondent

National Rail Corporation Limited

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Costs Application / Post Trial, Costs Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether gross sum party and party costs should be ordered under O 62 r 4(2)(c) of the Federal Court Rules
  2. 2 Whether allowance should be made for three counsel
  3. 3 Whether allowance should be made for expenses incurred due to retention of interstate counsel

Ratio Decidendi

Gross sum costs order was appropriate under O 62 r 4(2)(c) of the Federal Court Rules. The Court assessed costs based on what would be allowed on party and party taxation, applying the 'necessary or proper' test. Allowance was made for senior counsel and one junior counsel, accommodation and airfares for senior counsel, but not for additional (interstate) junior counsel. Negotiation costs incurred to agree costs were allowed as necessary or proper. Amounts for disbursements were reduced where not necessary or proper or where insufficient detail was provided.

Court Disposition

Gross sum costs order made; costs assessed and ordered payable by applicant to second respondent.

Orders

  • Costs ordered paid by Charlick Trading Pty Ltd to National Rail Corporation Limited on 6 September 1999 be a gross sum in the amount of $1,214,826.
  • Costs of the notice of motion of National Rail Corporation Limited of 18 April 2001 for order under O 62 r 4(2)(c) of the Federal Court Rules be reserved.