Reading v Partnership of Western Diagnostic Pathology (No 2) [2008] FCA 1636

Reading v Partnership of Western Diagnostic Pathology (No 2) [2008] FCA 1636

The respondents who succeeded or were put to unnecessary expense were entitled to costs following the event. The proposed settlement with the first respondent did not justify adjourning costs because it did not automatically resolve the positions of separately represented respondents. The ninth respondent was...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 November 2008
Procedural Posture
Federal Court Proceeding Concerning Costs and Amended Points of Claim / Costs Submissions After Judgment in Reading V Partnership of Western Diagnostic Pathology [2008] FCA 1381
Outcome
Costs orders made against the applicant; indemnity costs and immediate dismissal for the ninth respondent not granted; further time given to file and serve amended points of claim.
Legal Topics
['costs Following the Event' 'litigant in Person' 'indemnity Costs' 'amended Points of Claim' 'mediation' 'hreoc Act' 'joint and Several Liability in a Partnership']
['civil Procedure' 'costs' 'human Rights' 'partnerships'] ['costs Following the Event' 'litigant in Person' 'indemnity Costs' 'amended Points of Claim' 'mediation' 'hreoc Act' 'joint and Several Liability in a Partnership']

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

Federal Court Proceeding Concerning Costs and Amended Points of Claim / Costs Submissions After Judgment in Reading V Partnership of Western Diagnostic Pathology [2008] FCA 1381

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicant should pay the costs of the first, fifth and tenth respondents fixed at $9,000.' 'Whether the applicant should pay the costs of the third and fourth respondents after the application against them was dismissed.' "Whether the applicant's request to adjourn the costs decision should be granted because of an agreed in principle settlement with the first respondent." 'Whether the ninth respondent should receive costs on an indemnity basis and whether dismissal should be ordered.' 'Whether the applicant should be given a further extension to file and serve an amended points of claim.']

Ratio Decidendi

The respondents who succeeded or were put to unnecessary expense were entitled to costs following the event. The proposed settlement with the first respondent did not justify adjourning costs because it did not automatically resolve the positions of separately represented respondents. The ninth respondent was entitled to costs but not indemnity costs because Dr Reading's conduct appeared to arise from confusion or unfamiliarity with legal process and was not sufficiently unreasonable. A limited further extension to file and serve amended points of claim was appropriate.

Court Disposition

Costs orders made against the applicant; indemnity costs and immediate dismissal for the ninth respondent not granted; further time given to file and serve amended points of claim.

Orders

  • ['The applicant do pay the costs of the third and fourth respondents to be taxed if not agreed.' 'The applicant do pay the costs of the first, fifth and tenth respondents fixed at $9,000.' 'The applicant do pay the costs of the ninth respondent to be taxed if not agreed.' 'The applicant is to file and serve an...