CSL Australia Pty Limited v Minister for Infrastructure and Transport (No 2) [2014] FCAFC 35

CSL Australia Pty Limited v Minister for Infrastructure and Transport (No 2) [2014] FCAFC 35

Because CSL succeeded on the central issue in both appeals, and in light of the agreement with Rio Tinto, it was appropriate that the Minister pay 40% of CSL's costs of the proceedings before Robertson J (including costs of the unsuccessful interlocutory injunction application and the appeal). Costs orders should also reflect agreements between parties as to costs, and apportionment is appropriate given the Minister's relative lack of success.

Parties
Appellant: CSL Australia Pty Limited; First Respondent: Minister for Infrastructure and Transport; Second Respondent: Rio Tinto Shipping Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 March 2014
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Costs Determination Following Appeal Decision
Outcome
Costs orders varied; orders for costs made; agreement between certain parties as to no orders for costs recorded.
Legal Topics
Costs, Judicial Review, Statutory Interpretation, Shipping and Coastal Trading
Administrative Law Costs Judicial Review Statutory Interpretation Shipping and Coastal Trading

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 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CSL Australia Pty Limited

Appellant

Minister for Infrastructure and Transport

First Respondent

Rio Tinto Shipping Pty Ltd

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Costs Determination Following Appeal Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Minister should bear the costs of the appeal and proceedings below
  2. 2 Entitlement to costs as between the parties
  3. 3 Appropriate apportionment of costs given partial success and agreement among parties

Ratio Decidendi

Because CSL succeeded on the central issue in both appeals, and in light of the agreement with Rio Tinto, it was appropriate that the Minister pay 40% of CSL's costs of the proceedings before Robertson J (including costs of the unsuccessful interlocutory injunction application and the appeal). Costs orders should also reflect agreements between parties as to costs, and apportionment is appropriate given the Minister's relative lack of success.

Court Disposition

Costs orders varied; orders for costs made; agreement between certain parties as to no orders for costs recorded.

Orders

  • The first respondent pay 40% of the appellant's costs of the appeal and cross appeal.
  • Order 1 made by the primary judge on 12 October 2012 be varied by deleting the words 'with costs'.