Hanave Pty Ltd v LFOT Pty Ltd [2000] FCA 388

Hanave Pty Ltd v LFOT Pty Ltd [2000] FCA 388

The ambiguous costs order of the Full Court should be construed as only relating to the original application determined on appeal and not the cross-claim. The court is not constrained from making appropriate orders for costs of the cross-claim, to which the cross-claimants were substantially entitled, and the cross-respondent was liable for those costs.

Parties
Applicant: Hanave Pty Limited; First Respondent/cross Claimant: LFOT Pty Limited (formerly Jagar Projects Pty Ltd); Second Respondent/cross Claimant: Paul Ewen Mitchell Tresidder; Third Respondent/cross Claimant: Joseph Raymond Glew; Cross Respondent: Robert Burke
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 March 2000
Procedural Posture
Costs Determination in Commercial Proceedings / Post Trial, After Remittal From Full Court Appeal
Outcome
Costs orders made: cross-respondent (Burke) to pay cross-claimants' costs of the cross-claim; LFOT and Tresidder to pay Hanave half the costs of preparation of written submissions after 6 May 1999; Burke to pay cross-claimants half the costs of same written submissions.
Legal Topics
Costs Orders, Construction of Court Orders, Appeal Remittal, Cross Claims
Civil Procedure Costs Orders Construction of Court Orders Appeal Remittal Cross Claims

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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hanave Pty Limited

Applicant

LFOT Pty Limited (formerly Jagar Projects Pty Ltd)

First Respondent/cross Claimant

Paul Ewen Mitchell Tresidder

Second Respondent/cross Claimant

Joseph Raymond Glew

Third Respondent/cross Claimant

Robert Burke

Cross Respondent

Procedural Posture

Costs Determination in Commercial Proceedings / Post Trial, After Remittal From Full Court Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Proper construction of ambiguous costs order of Full Court
  2. 2 Entitlement to costs in relation to cross-claim
  3. 3 Application of costs orders to parties not involved in appeal

Ratio Decidendi

The ambiguous costs order of the Full Court should be construed as only relating to the original application determined on appeal and not the cross-claim. The court is not constrained from making appropriate orders for costs of the cross-claim, to which the cross-claimants were substantially entitled, and the cross-respondent was liable for those costs.

Court Disposition

Costs orders made: cross-respondent (Burke) to pay cross-claimants' costs of the cross-claim; LFOT and Tresidder to pay Hanave half the costs of preparation of written submissions after 6 May 1999; Burke to pay cross-claimants half the costs of same written submissions.

Orders

  • Subject to orders 2 and 3 the cross-respondent pay the cross-claimants' costs of the cross-claim.
  • LFOT Pty Ltd and Paul Tresidder pay Hanave Pty Ltd half the costs of the preparation of the written submissions filed after 6 May 1999.