Donohoe v Britz (No 2) [1904] HCA 25

Donohoe v Britz (No 2) [1904] HCA 25

The Registrar's disallowance of costs for a third counsel and fresh copies of briefs was not clearly wrong, nor was the principle applied incorrect; employment of three counsel and copying of fresh briefs did not meet the threshold for exceptional cases or necessity, so the claim for costs was dismissed.

Parties
Applicant: Donohoe; Respondent: Britz
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 September 1904
Procedural Posture
Summons for Review of Taxation / Post Appeal Costs Review
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Costs, Taxation of Costs, Counsel Fees, Appeals
Civil Procedure Costs Taxation of Costs Counsel Fees Appeals

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 3 Authorities cited 25 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Donohoe

Applicant

Britz

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Summons for Review of Taxation / Post Appeal Costs Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Registrar erred in disallowing the costs of a third counsel for the High Court appeal
  2. 2 Whether the Registrar erred in disallowing costs for fresh copies of briefs used in the Supreme Court for the appeal

Ratio Decidendi

The Registrar's disallowance of costs for a third counsel and fresh copies of briefs was not clearly wrong, nor was the principle applied incorrect; employment of three counsel and copying of fresh briefs did not meet the threshold for exceptional cases or necessity, so the claim for costs was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Costs of the application to be set off against the general costs of appeal