Meneses v Directed Electronics OE Pty Ltd (No 2) [2019] FCAFC 200

Meneses v Directed Electronics OE Pty Ltd (No 2) [2019] FCAFC 200

The appellants were substantially successful in the appeal and therefore the costs of the application for leave to appeal and the appeal should be paid by the respondent; there are no special circumstances warranting departure from the usual rule that costs follow the event. The costs of the interlocutory application before the primary judge should be reserved for determination after the remittal, as its outcome is yet to be determined.

Parties
First Appellant: Johnny Meneses; Second Appellant: OE Solutions Pty Ltd (ACN 119 188 019); Respondent: Directed Electronics OE Pty Ltd (ACN 130 647 737)
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 November 2019
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Costs Determination Following Appeal Decision and Remittal Order
Outcome
Appellants awarded costs of the application for leave to appeal and the appeal; costs of the application before the primary judge reserved for future determination.
Legal Topics
Costs, Appeals, Interlocutory Application, Remittal
Practice and Procedure Costs Appeals Interlocutory Application Remittal

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Johnny Meneses

First Appellant

OE Solutions Pty Ltd (ACN 119 188 019)

Second Appellant

Directed Electronics OE Pty Ltd (ACN 130 647 737)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Costs Determination Following Appeal Decision and Remittal Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the appropriate order for costs following an allowed appeal and remittal of interlocutory application?
  2. 2 Are there special circumstances justifying departure from the usual order that costs follow the event?

Ratio Decidendi

The appellants were substantially successful in the appeal and therefore the costs of the application for leave to appeal and the appeal should be paid by the respondent; there are no special circumstances warranting departure from the usual rule that costs follow the event. The costs of the interlocutory application before the primary judge should be reserved for determination after the remittal, as its outcome is yet to be determined.

Court Disposition

Appellants awarded costs of the application for leave to appeal and the appeal; costs of the application before the primary judge reserved for future determination.

Orders

  • The respondent pay the appellants' costs of the application for leave to appeal and the appeal.
  • The costs of the application before the primary judge be reserved for determination by the judge who hears and determines the application upon remittal or, in the alternative, the trial judge.