Jadwan Pty Ltd v Rae & Partners (a firm) (No 6) [2021] FCA 542

Jadwan Pty Ltd v Rae & Partners (a firm) (No 6) [2021] FCA 542

The applications for extension of time and stay were refused due to lack of satisfactory explanation for delay, the absence of grounds to require a joint assessment of all respondents' costs, failure to earlier raise arguments about duplication or representation, and the reasonableness of the Registrar’s cost assessment. The object of the Full Court’s lump sum costs order was to avoid protracted dispute, and permitting new arguments would undermine this finality.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 May 2021
Procedural Posture
Practice and Procedure / Application for Extension of Time and Stay; Costs Orders; Post Appeal Enforcement
Outcome
Applicant's applications for extension of time and stay dismissed; orders made for payment of assessed costs and interest from security for costs.
Legal Topics
['extension of Time' 'costs Assessment' 'stay of Execution' 'security for Costs']
['practice and Procedure'] ['extension of Time' 'costs Assessment' 'stay of Execution' 'security for Costs']

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

Practice and Procedure / Application for Extension of Time and Stay; Costs Orders; Post Appeal Enforcement

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether an extension of time should be granted to apply for review of a Registrar's lump sum costs assessment" 'Whether a stay of enforcement of the costs order in favour of the fifth respondent should be granted' "Whether the Registrar's costs assessment was unreasonable or failed to consider relevant duplication issues"]

Ratio Decidendi

The applications for extension of time and stay were refused due to lack of satisfactory explanation for delay, the absence of grounds to require a joint assessment of all respondents' costs, failure to earlier raise arguments about duplication or representation, and the reasonableness of the Registrar’s cost assessment. The object of the Full Court’s lump sum costs order was to avoid protracted dispute, and permitting new arguments would undermine this finality.

Court Disposition

Applicant's applications for extension of time and stay dismissed; orders made for payment of assessed costs and interest from security for costs.

Orders

  • ["Of the sum provided by the appellant as security for costs of the fifth respondent and held by Keypoint Law, $48,539.16 plus interest be paid to the practitioner for the fifth respondent in satisfaction of the Registrar's lump sum assessment." "The appellant pay the fifth respondent's costs of the applications...