Loyola v Cryeng Pty Ltd (No 2) [2012] FCAFC 98

Loyola v Cryeng Pty Ltd (No 2) [2012] FCAFC 98

The application to recall the orders was refused because, although the joint reasons had not addressed the successor representation ground, the trial judge's finding that the business cessation representation was made supported the commercial reputation damages award, and the Court was not persuaded that the finding that the appellants made the successor representation was erroneous. For costs at first instance, the earlier Federal Court Rules applied because the relevant decision to bring and maintain the case in this Court occurred before the Federal Court Rules 2011 commenced, and the respondent was entitled to all its costs because the claims were connected with other claims properly...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 July 2012
Procedural Posture
Appeal; Application to Recall Orders and Costs Determination / Full Court Determination After Reasons and Orders Made on 18 May 2012
Outcome
The appellants' application to recall the orders of 18 May 2012 was refused; the appellants were ordered to pay the respondent's costs at first instance; the respondent was ordered to pay 85 per cent of the appellants' costs of the appeal.
Legal Topics
['recall of Orders' 'failure to Address Appeal Ground' 'federal Court Rules Transition' 'costs at First Instance' 'costs of Appeal' 'commercial Reputation Damages']
['practice and Procedure' 'costs'] ['recall of Orders' 'failure to Address Appeal Ground' 'federal Court Rules Transition' 'costs at First Instance' 'costs of Appeal' 'commercial Reputation Damages']

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

Appeal; Application to Recall Orders and Costs Determination / Full Court Determination After Reasons and Orders Made on 18 May 2012

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Court should recall its orders of 18 May 2012 because the joint reasons did not address the appellants' second ground of appeal concerning the successor representation." 'Whether the Federal Court Rules 2011 or the earlier Federal Court Rules 1979 should apply to the determination of costs at first instance.' 'Whether the respondent should receive its costs at first instance despite judgment being for less than $100,000.' 'What costs order should be made for the appeal where the appellants were mostly successful but failed on some issues.']

Ratio Decidendi

The application to recall the orders was refused because, although the joint reasons had not addressed the successor representation ground, the trial judge's finding that the business cessation representation was made supported the commercial reputation damages award, and the Court was not persuaded that the finding that the appellants made the successor representation was erroneous. For costs at first instance, the earlier Federal Court Rules applied because the relevant decision to bring and maintain the case in this Court occurred before the Federal Court Rules 2011 commenced, and the respondent was entitled to all its costs because the claims were connected with other claims properly...

Court Disposition

The appellants' application to recall the orders of 18 May 2012 was refused; the appellants were ordered to pay the respondent's costs at first instance; the respondent was ordered to pay 85 per cent of the appellants' costs of the appeal.

Orders

  • ['The application of the appellants to recall the orders of 18 May 2012 be refused.' 'As to the costs at first instance: Pursuant to Rule 1.04(3) of the Federal Court Rules 2011, the earlier Rules apply.' "The appellants pay the respondent's costs." "As to the costs of the appeal the respondent is to pay 85 per cent...