Brown v Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu (A Partnership) (No 3) [2021] FCA 581

Brown v Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu (A Partnership) (No 3) [2021] FCA 581

The applicant was essentially successful in his discovery and particulars applications; the first respondent's absolute opposition meant the application required resolution, resulting in the applicant being entitled to costs. Where an application was not determined on its merits, fairness dictates each party bears its own costs.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 May 2021
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Costs Determination
Outcome
Orders as to costs granted
Legal Topics
['discovery' 'notice to Produce' 'subpoenas' 'costs']
['administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights'] ['discovery' 'notice to Produce' 'subpoenas' '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
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application / Costs Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Entitlement to costs in interlocutory applications for discovery, further and better particulars, notice to produce, and subpoenas']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant was essentially successful in his discovery and particulars applications; the first respondent's absolute opposition meant the application required resolution, resulting in the applicant being entitled to costs. Where an application was not determined on its merits, fairness dictates each party bears its own costs.

Court Disposition

Orders as to costs granted

Orders

  • ["The first respondent pay the costs of the applicant's interlocutory application for discovery and further and better particulars and the first respondent's interlocutory application to set aside subpoenas." "Each party bear its own costs of the first respondent's interlocutory application to set aside a notice to...