Commissioner of Taxation v Grimaldi (No. 8) [2009] FCA 769

Commissioner of Taxation v Grimaldi (No. 8) [2009] FCA 769

The circumstances were special because the third and fifth respondents' undertakings, refined during the hearing, were central to the refusal of further freezing orders and operated as a substitute for injunctive relief. It was therefore inappropriate to order costs in their favour or make no order; the proper discretionary order was that they pay one quarter of the applicant's costs of the Notice of Motion, and that order should be entered forthwith.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 July 2009
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion for Freezing Orders and Costs / Costs Application Under Liberty to Apply After Dismissal of Freezing Order Relief Against the Third and Fifth Respondents
Outcome
The third and fifth respondents' application for a different costs order was rejected; the earlier costs order stands and Order 4 of the orders made on 9 July 2009 was varied.
Legal Topics
['freezing Orders' 'undertakings to the Court' 'indemnity Costs' 'variation and Entry of Orders']
['civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['freezing Orders' 'undertakings to the Court' 'indemnity Costs' 'variation and Entry of Orders']

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

Notice of Motion for Freezing Orders and Costs / Costs Application Under Liberty to Apply After Dismissal of Freezing Order Relief Against the Third and Fifth Respondents

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the costs order requiring the third and fifth respondents to pay one quarter of the applicant's costs of the Notice of Motion should stand despite dismissal of the freezing order relief against them." "Whether the applicant should instead pay the third and fifth respondents' costs from the giving of undertakings on an indemnity basis." 'Whether Order 4 of the orders made on 9 July 2009 should be varied to permit entry of the costs order forthwith.']

Ratio Decidendi

The circumstances were special because the third and fifth respondents' undertakings, refined during the hearing, were central to the refusal of further freezing orders and operated as a substitute for injunctive relief. It was therefore inappropriate to order costs in their favour or make no order; the proper discretionary order was that they pay one quarter of the applicant's costs of the Notice of Motion, and that order should be entered forthwith.

Court Disposition

The third and fifth respondents' application for a different costs order was rejected; the earlier costs order stands and Order 4 of the orders made on 9 July 2009 was varied.

Orders

  • ['Order 4 of the orders made on 9 July 2009 be varied to read: Orders 1, 2 and 3 may be entered forthwith.' 'The order that the third and fifth respondents pay one quarter of the costs of the applicant of the Notice of Motion filed 11 May 2009 stands.']