Epiflor Epipanel Pty Ltd v Abel Lemon & Co Pty Ltd [1988] FCA 369
There were no facts establishing that the respondent’s conduct, either before or during the litigation, was so improper as to deprive the respondent of its costs. Accordingly, the applicant is required to pay the respondent's costs despite sympathy for the applicant's position.
- Parties
- Applicant: Epiflor Epipanel Pty Ltd; Respondent: Abel Lemon & Co Pty Ltd
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 14 July 1988
- Procedural Posture
- Costs Application Following Discontinuance/strike Out of Proceedings / Final Orders Following Discontinuance/strike Out; Determination of Costs
- Outcome
- Application for no order as to costs dismissed; costs awarded to respondent; order stayed for three months.
- Legal Topics
- Costs, Discontinuance, Strike Out
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Epiflor Epipanel Pty Ltd
Applicant
Abel Lemon & Co Pty Ltd
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Costs Application Following Discontinuance/strike Out of Proceedings / Final Orders Following Discontinuance/strike Out; Determination of Costs
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant should pay the respondent's costs following discontinuance/strike-out of application
Ratio Decidendi
There were no facts establishing that the respondent’s conduct, either before or during the litigation, was so improper as to deprive the respondent of its costs. Accordingly, the applicant is required to pay the respondent's costs despite sympathy for the applicant's position.
Court Disposition
Application for no order as to costs dismissed; costs awarded to respondent; order stayed for three months.
Orders
- The applicant pay the respondent's costs.
- The order for costs be stayed for three months.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment