Rogers v Asset Loan Co Pty Ltd (No2) [2008] FCA 1277

Rogers v Asset Loan Co Pty Ltd (No2) [2008] FCA 1277

Because Mr Rogers had some forensic success, particularly in relation to the Respondents' unsuccessful pursuit of relief under O 21 of the Federal Court Rules, he should not bear all of the Respondents' costs. The costs of and incidental to the hearing on 19 December 2007 were overwhelmingly referable to that unsuccessful O 21 issue, so the Respondents were ordered to pay those costs, while Mr Rogers was otherwise ordered to pay the Respondents' costs of and incidental to the application including reserve costs.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 August 2008
Procedural Posture
Costs in Federal Court Application / Post Judgment Determination of Costs After Judgment on 21 August 2008 and Written Costs Submissions
Outcome
Costs ordered partly in favour of the Applicant for the 19 December 2007 hearing and otherwise in favour of the Respondents.
Legal Topics
['costs Orders' 'relative Success of Parties' 'order 21 of the Federal Court Rules' 'personal Injury Damages Claim Under the Australian Securities and Investment Commission Act 2001 (cth)']
['civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['costs Orders' 'relative Success of Parties' 'order 21 of the Federal Court Rules' 'personal Injury Damages Claim Under the Australian Securities and Investment Commission Act 2001 (cth)']

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 in Federal Court Application / Post Judgment Determination of Costs After Judgment on 21 August 2008 and Written Costs Submissions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether there should be no order as to costs or costs orders in favour of one or both parties.' 'Whether the costs of and incidental to the hearing on 19 December 2007 should be treated separately because they were overwhelmingly referable to the issue on which the Respondents did not succeed, namely relief under O 21 of the Federal Court Rules.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because Mr Rogers had some forensic success, particularly in relation to the Respondents' unsuccessful pursuit of relief under O 21 of the Federal Court Rules, he should not bear all of the Respondents' costs. The costs of and incidental to the hearing on 19 December 2007 were overwhelmingly referable to that unsuccessful O 21 issue, so the Respondents were ordered to pay those costs, while Mr Rogers was otherwise ordered to pay the Respondents' costs of and incidental to the application including reserve costs.

Court Disposition

Costs ordered partly in favour of the Applicant for the 19 December 2007 hearing and otherwise in favour of the Respondents.

Orders

  • ["The Respondents are to pay the Applicant's costs of and incidental to the hearing on 19 December 2007 to be taxed." "Save as aforesaid the Applicant is to pay the Respondents' costs of and incidental to the application including reserve costs to be taxed."]