Peek v CEO, Australian Government Solicitor (No. 6) [2008] FCA 1502

Peek v CEO, Australian Government Solicitor (No. 6) [2008] FCA 1502

In the absence of any evidence concerning the improper, unreasonable or negligent incurrence of any costs, there is no alternative but to dismiss both motions and order the applicant to pay the respondents' costs.

Parties
Applicant: Gregory James Peek; First Respondent: Chief Executive Officer, Australian Government Solicitor; Second Respondent: Megan Pitt
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 October 2008
Procedural Posture
Motion / Costs Hearing
Outcome
motions dismissed
Legal Topics
Costs, Motions, Federal Court Rules
Civil Procedure Costs Motions Federal Court Rules

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gregory James Peek

Applicant

Chief Executive Officer, Australian Government Solicitor

First Respondent

Megan Pitt

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Motion / Costs Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether costs claimed in the bill of costs filed by the respondents should be disallowed pursuant to Order 62 Rule 36(1)(a) of the Federal Court Rules

Ratio Decidendi

In the absence of any evidence concerning the improper, unreasonable or negligent incurrence of any costs, there is no alternative but to dismiss both motions and order the applicant to pay the respondents' costs.

Court Disposition

motions dismissed

Orders

  • The applicant's notices of motion both dated 25 July 2008 be dismissed.
  • The applicant pay the first and second respondents' costs on the motions.