Fritz v Torres Strait Regional Authority [1999] FCA 401

Fritz v Torres Strait Regional Authority [1999] FCA 401

The applicant provided no material capable of justifying a stay of Cooper J's costs order. Because there was no foundation for a stay, ordering service of the motion on the non-appearing respondents by registered mail would be futile. The notice of motion was therefore dismissed, and the applicant was ordered to pay...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 March 1999
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion for Stay of Costs Order Pending Appeal and for Service by Registered Mail / Interlocutory Motion After Dismissal of Action and After Notice of Appeal Lodged
Outcome
Notice of motion dismissed.
Legal Topics
['stay Pending Appeal' 'costs Orders' 'service of Motion' 'federal Court Rules O 52 R 17']
['civil Procedure' 'federal Court Practice and Procedure'] ['stay Pending Appeal' 'costs Orders' 'service of Motion' 'federal Court Rules O 52 R 17']

Source-derived case record

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 Stay of Costs Order Pending Appeal and for Service by Registered Mail / Interlocutory Motion After Dismissal of Action and After Notice of Appeal Lodged

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the costs order made by Cooper J on 5 March 1999 should be stayed pending the finalisation of the applicant's appeal." 'Whether an interim order should be made authorising service of the notice of motion, supporting affidavit and notice of appeal on all respondents by registered mail.' 'Whether the applicant should pay the costs of the first and fourth respondents of and incidental to the notice of motion.']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant provided no material capable of justifying a stay of Cooper J's costs order. Because there was no foundation for a stay, ordering service of the motion on the non-appearing respondents by registered mail would be futile. The notice of motion was therefore dismissed, and the applicant was ordered to pay the first and fourth respondents' costs of and incidental to the motion.

Court Disposition

Notice of motion dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The notice of motion filed 22 March 1999 be dismissed.' 'The applicant pay the costs of the first and fourth respondents of and incidental to his notice of motion.']