James v Commonwealth Bank of Australia (No 2) [2015] FCA 599

James v Commonwealth Bank of Australia (No 2) [2015] FCA 599

Although Mr James obtained interlocutory relief, he did not succeed on the interlocutory application as originally filed; the relief was obtained on the basis of significant amendments and an undertaking that were not made or foreshadowed until the CBA had incurred its costs in defending the application. Having regard to the rationale for costs in the cause and the Court's broad costs discretion, the appropriate order was that the costs of the amended interlocutory application be costs in the cause.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 June 2015
Procedural Posture
Appeal From the Federal Circuit Court of Australia; Costs on Interlocutory Application / Determined on the Papers After Respondent Sought Revocation of Costs Order Made on Interlocutory Application
Outcome
The respondent's application for a costs in the cause order was accepted; the earlier costs-follow-the-event order was replaced.
Legal Topics
['costs of Interlocutory Application' 'costs in the Cause' 'costs Follow the Event' 'stay or Suspension of Sequestration Order Pending Appeal']
['costs' 'bankruptcy' 'appellate Procedure'] ['costs of Interlocutory Application' 'costs in the Cause' 'costs Follow the Event' 'stay or Suspension of Sequestration Order Pending Appeal']

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 From the Federal Circuit Court of Australia; Costs on Interlocutory Application / Determined on the Papers After Respondent Sought Revocation of Costs Order Made on Interlocutory Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the successful applicant on an interlocutory application should receive costs following the event or whether the costs should be costs in the cause.' 'Whether substantial amendments to the interlocutory application during the hearing and in reply submissions justified departing from the order that costs follow the event.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although Mr James obtained interlocutory relief, he did not succeed on the interlocutory application as originally filed; the relief was obtained on the basis of significant amendments and an undertaking that were not made or foreshadowed until the CBA had incurred its costs in defending the application. Having regard to the rationale for costs in the cause and the Court's broad costs discretion, the appropriate order was that the costs of the amended interlocutory application be costs in the cause.

Court Disposition

The respondent's application for a costs in the cause order was accepted; the earlier costs-follow-the-event order was replaced.

Orders

  • ["Costs of the applicant's interlocutory application filed on 18 May 2015 (as later amended) be costs in the cause."]