Shurat HaDin, Israel Law Center v Lynch (No 4) [2014] FCA 1216

Shurat HaDin, Israel Law Center v Lynch (No 4) [2014] FCA 1216

The fifth applicant was not adversely affected by the Registrar's orders as its right to participate in taxation remained unaffected. The Rules allow any party against whom a costs order has been made to object, and such objection displaces the estimate process; it is not necessary for all jointly interested parties to object.

Parties
First Applicant: Shurat HaDin - The Israel Law Center; Second Applicant: David Hans Lange; Third Applicant: Jonathan Rose; Fourth Applicant: Andrew Hamilton; Fifth Applicant: Green Freedom Limited (Israel Company Number 514 331 479); Respondent: Jake Lynch
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 November 2014
Procedural Posture
Civil / Review of Registrar's Orders (costs)
Outcome
Application for review dismissed (in part); orders varied; costs ordered
Legal Topics
Costs, Taxation of Costs, Review of Registrar's Orders
Civil Procedure Costs Taxation of Costs Review of Registrar's 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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Shurat HaDin - The Israel Law Center

First Applicant

David Hans Lange

Second Applicant

Jonathan Rose

Third Applicant

Andrew Hamilton

Fourth Applicant

Green Freedom Limited (Israel Company Number 514 331 479)

Fifth Applicant

Jake Lynch

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil / Review of Registrar's Orders (costs)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant for review was affected by the orders of the Registrar relating to taxation of costs
  2. 2 Proper operation of Federal Court Rules regarding objections to an estimate of costs and entitlement to participate in taxation

Ratio Decidendi

The fifth applicant was not adversely affected by the Registrar's orders as its right to participate in taxation remained unaffected. The Rules allow any party against whom a costs order has been made to object, and such objection displaces the estimate process; it is not necessary for all jointly interested parties to object.

Court Disposition

Application for review dismissed (in part); orders varied; costs ordered

Orders

  • In place of order 2 made by the Registrar on 7 August 2014, a modified order is made regarding compliance with r 40.21(1)(b) and the standing of the $2,000 security.
  • Orders 3, 4, 5 and 6 made by the Registrar on 7 August 2014 are set aside.