Hamersley Iron Pty Ltd v National Competition Council [1999] FCA 1078

Hamersley Iron Pty Ltd v National Competition Council [1999] FCA 1078

Where the applicant succeeded on the main issue but not on all issues, justice requires that the respondents pay a proportion (73%) of the applicant's costs, including all reserved costs, with no distinctions between the second to seventh respondents. The first respondent's limited participation means its costs should be paid by the losing respondents.

Parties
Applicant: Hamersley Iron Pty Ltd; First Respondent: The National Competition Council; Second Respondent: Robe River Mining Co Pty Ltd; Third Respondent: Mitsui Iron Ore Development Pty Ltd; Fourth Respondent: North Mining Limited; Fifth Respondent: Nippon Steel Australia Pty Ltd; Sixth Respondent: Sumitomo Metal Australia Pty Ltd; Seventh Respondent: Hope Downs Management Services Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 August 1999
Procedural Posture
Costs Determination / Post Judgment
Outcome
Second to seventh respondents to pay 73% of applicant's costs including reserved costs. Second to seventh respondents to pay the costs of and incidental to the first respondent's participation.
Legal Topics
Costs Orders, Proportionate Costs, Federal Court Procedure
Competition Law Civil Procedure Costs Orders Proportionate Costs Federal Court Procedure

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 5 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hamersley Iron Pty Ltd

Applicant

The National Competition Council

First Respondent

Robe River Mining Co Pty Ltd

Second Respondent

Mitsui Iron Ore Development Pty Ltd

Third Respondent

North Mining Limited

Fourth Respondent

Nippon Steel Australia Pty Ltd

Fifth Respondent

Sumitomo Metal Australia Pty Ltd

Sixth Respondent

Hope Downs Management Services Pty Ltd

Seventh Respondent

Procedural Posture

Costs Determination / Post Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Court should order the losing parties to pay a fixed proportion of the successful party's costs
  2. 2 How to apportion costs where the applicant succeeded on the main issue but failed on another issue

Ratio Decidendi

Where the applicant succeeded on the main issue but not on all issues, justice requires that the respondents pay a proportion (73%) of the applicant's costs, including all reserved costs, with no distinctions between the second to seventh respondents. The first respondent's limited participation means its costs should be paid by the losing respondents.

Court Disposition

Second to seventh respondents to pay 73% of applicant's costs including reserved costs. Second to seventh respondents to pay the costs of and incidental to the first respondent's participation.

Orders

  • The second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh respondents pay 73% of the applicant's costs, including all reserved costs.
  • The second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh respondents pay the costs of and incidental to the first respondent's participation in the proceeding.