Guglielmin v Trescowthick (No.4) [2005] FCA 140

Guglielmin v Trescowthick (No.4) [2005] FCA 140

The respondents were justified in bringing their motions because deficiencies in the statement of claim had been raised and the applicant's proposed amendments emerged only close to or during the hearing, but the respondents were largely unsuccessful, did not obtain an order striking out the statement of claim, and only relatively few parts required significant modification. Balancing those considerations, the appropriate order was that the costs of each motion be costs in the cause.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 February 2005
Procedural Posture
Costs Ruling on Notices of Motion to Strike Out Statement of Claim / After Judgment on Strike Out Motions; Determination of Costs
Outcome
The costs of each respondent notice of motion were ordered to be costs in the cause.
Legal Topics
['strike Out Application' 'amendment of Statement of Claim' 'costs in the Cause']
['civil Procedure' 'costs' 'pleadings'] ['strike Out Application' 'amendment of Statement of Claim' 'costs in the Cause']

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

Costs Ruling on Notices of Motion to Strike Out Statement of Claim / After Judgment on Strike Out Motions; Determination of Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the applicant should recover the costs of the respondents' notices of motion to strike out the statement of claim." 'Whether the first and sixth respondents should recover the costs of their respective notices of motion against the applicant.' "Whether the costs of the second to fifth respondents' notice of motion should be costs in the cause."]

Ratio Decidendi

The respondents were justified in bringing their motions because deficiencies in the statement of claim had been raised and the applicant's proposed amendments emerged only close to or during the hearing, but the respondents were largely unsuccessful, did not obtain an order striking out the statement of claim, and only relatively few parts required significant modification. Balancing those considerations, the appropriate order was that the costs of each motion be costs in the cause.

Court Disposition

The costs of each respondent notice of motion were ordered to be costs in the cause.

Orders

  • ["The costs of and incidental to the first respondent's notice of motion dated 10 October 2002 and filed on 16 October 2002 be costs in the cause." "The costs of and incidental to the second to fifth respondents' notice of motion dated 15 October 2002 and filed on 17 October 2002 be costs in the cause." "The costs...