Hancock Prospecting Pty Ltd v Rinehart (No 3) [2021] FCAFC 23

Hancock Prospecting Pty Ltd v Rinehart (No 3) [2021] FCAFC 23

The Federal Court does not have power to stay, vary, or construe a costs order made by the High Court. There is no basis in the intention of the Court or in the circumstances to make any of the orders sought by the applicants. Accordingly, the applications are dismissed, and the applicants must pay the respondents' costs.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 March 2021
Procedural Posture
Applications in Appeal Proceedings / Post Judgment Interlocutory Application
Outcome
applications dismissed
Legal Topics
['costs' 'appeals' 'arbitration' 'stay of Orders']
['commercial Law' 'civil Procedure'] ['costs' 'appeals' 'arbitration' 'stay of Orders']

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

Applications in Appeal Proceedings / Post Judgment Interlocutory Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Does the Federal Court have power to stay or vary a costs order made by the High Court?' 'Should the Federal Court make orders to prevent taxation of appeal costs until proceedings at first instance are determined?']

Ratio Decidendi

The Federal Court does not have power to stay, vary, or construe a costs order made by the High Court. There is no basis in the intention of the Court or in the circumstances to make any of the orders sought by the applicants. Accordingly, the applications are dismissed, and the applicants must pay the respondents' costs.

Court Disposition

applications dismissed

Orders

  • ['Leave granted to amend interlocutory applications' 'Interlocutory applications dismissed' "Applicants in the interlocutory applications pay respondents' costs"]