Tisdall v Blazow [2005] FCAFC 213

Tisdall v Blazow [2005] FCAFC 213

The proceeding had sufficient special or unusual features to warrant indemnity costs because, apart from the abandonment of a number of grounds on the hearing day, the grounds pursued were of so little merit that the applicant should have appreciated they had no chance of success; indemnity costs were ordered to indemnify the first respondent against costs of an appeal unreasonably instituted and pursued, not to punish the applicant.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 September 2005
Procedural Posture
Application for Indemnity Costs Following Dismissal of an Appeal and Judicial Review Application / Costs Determination After Full Court Decision
Outcome
Application for indemnity costs granted in favour of the first respondent.
Legal Topics
['indemnity Costs' 'federal Court Costs Discretion' 'professional Services Review Tribunal' 'unreasonable Institution and Pursuit of Appeal']
['costs' 'administrative Law' 'health Insurance'] ['indemnity Costs' 'federal Court Costs Discretion' 'professional Services Review Tribunal' 'unreasonable Institution and Pursuit of 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

Application for Indemnity Costs Following Dismissal of an Appeal and Judicial Review Application / Costs Determination After Full Court Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the first respondent should be awarded indemnity costs rather than party and party costs.' 'Whether the proceeding had special or unusual features warranting departure from the general approach to costs.' 'Whether the applicant unreasonably instituted and pursued grounds of appeal that had no chance of success.']

Ratio Decidendi

The proceeding had sufficient special or unusual features to warrant indemnity costs because, apart from the abandonment of a number of grounds on the hearing day, the grounds pursued were of so little merit that the applicant should have appreciated they had no chance of success; indemnity costs were ordered to indemnify the first respondent against costs of an appeal unreasonably instituted and pursued, not to punish the applicant.

Court Disposition

Application for indemnity costs granted in favour of the first respondent.

Orders

  • ["The appellant pay the first respondent's costs on the basis that such costs are to include all costs except in so far as they are of an unreasonable amount or were unreasonably incurred so that, subject to such exceptions, the first respondent will be completely indemnified by the appellant for its costs."]