Jadwan Pty Ltd v Rae & Partners (A Firm) (No 2) [2020] FCAFC 95

Jadwan Pty Ltd v Rae & Partners (A Firm) (No 2) [2020] FCAFC 95

The Court determined that no reduction should be applied to the costs payable by the appellant due to asserted partial success, as the substantive orders of the primary judge were not disturbed and the respondents succeeded in resisting the appeal. The ordinary rule that costs follow the event applies; a lump sum costs order is appropriate, with assessment and orders to be made by a Registrar.

Parties
Appellant: Jadwan Pty Ltd; First Respondent: Rae & Partners (A Firm); Second Respondent: Wilson Dowd (A Firm); Third Respondent: Toomey Maning & Co (A Firm); Fourth Respondent: Janet Kay Hogan as the Executrix of the Estate of the late John Michael Jogan; Fifth Respondent: Worsley Darcey & Associates
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 May 2020
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Post Disposition (costs)
Outcome
Appellant to pay respondents' costs of the appeal assessed in a lump sum; Registrar to determine the amount and make orders for payment.
Legal Topics
Lump Sum Costs Order, Partial Success and Costs Reduction, Court Registrar Assessment of Costs
Costs Lump Sum Costs Order Partial Success and Costs Reduction Court Registrar Assessment of 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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jadwan Pty Ltd

Appellant

Rae & Partners (A Firm)

First Respondent

Wilson Dowd (A Firm)

Second Respondent

Toomey Maning & Co (A Firm)

Third Respondent

Janet Kay Hogan as the Executrix of the Estate of the late John Michael Jogan

Fourth Respondent

Worsley Darcey & Associates

Fifth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Post Disposition (costs)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the costs payable by the appellant to the respondents should be reduced due to partial success in the appeal
  2. 2 Whether a lump sum costs order should be made
  3. 3 Whether assessment of costs should be referred to the Registrar

Ratio Decidendi

The Court determined that no reduction should be applied to the costs payable by the appellant due to asserted partial success, as the substantive orders of the primary judge were not disturbed and the respondents succeeded in resisting the appeal. The ordinary rule that costs follow the event applies; a lump sum costs order is appropriate, with assessment and orders to be made by a Registrar.

Court Disposition

Appellant to pay respondents' costs of the appeal assessed in a lump sum; Registrar to determine the amount and make orders for payment.

Orders

  • The appellant pay the respondents' costs of the appeal to be assessed in a lump sum pursuant to r 40.02(b) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth).
  • A Registrar of the Court is to determine the amount of the respondents' costs in such manner as the Registrar deems fit, and shall then make an order fixing the amount of those costs, which are to be payable within 28 days of such orders.