Hillier v Martin (No 16) [2022] FCA 1155

Hillier v Martin (No 16) [2022] FCA 1155

Mr Martin, although a non-party, brought an unusual interlocutory application to re-open argument on a joinder application despite lacking standing. The application should not have been brought, required the applicant's solicitors and counsel to incur costs on the standing issue, and concerned a discrete issue that had been resolved. Those circumstances justified ordering Mr Martin to pay the applicant's costs on a party-party basis, assessed as a lump sum by a Registrar and payable within 28 days of the lump sum being fixed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 September 2022
Procedural Posture
Application for Costs Following Dismissal of an Interlocutory Application Filed by a Non Party / Costs Determination After Dismissal of Interlocutory Application
Outcome
Application granted.
Legal Topics
['costs Against a Non Party' 'costs Payable Forthwith' 'lump Sum Assessment of Costs' 'standing to Bring Interlocutory Application']
['costs' 'federal Court Procedure'] ['costs Against a Non Party' 'costs Payable Forthwith' 'lump Sum Assessment of Costs' 'standing to Bring Interlocutory Application']

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

Application for Costs Following Dismissal of an Interlocutory Application Filed by a Non Party / Costs Determination After Dismissal of Interlocutory Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Court should order a non-party to pay the applicant's costs of and incidental to the interlocutory application filed on 21 July 2022." 'Whether the costs should be assessed on a lump sum basis.' 'Whether r 40.13 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) should be dispensed with so that costs are payable forthwith.']

Ratio Decidendi

Mr Martin, although a non-party, brought an unusual interlocutory application to re-open argument on a joinder application despite lacking standing. The application should not have been brought, required the applicant's solicitors and counsel to incur costs on the standing issue, and concerned a discrete issue that had been resolved. Those circumstances justified ordering Mr Martin to pay the applicant's costs on a party-party basis, assessed as a lump sum by a Registrar and payable within 28 days of the lump sum being fixed.

Court Disposition

Application granted.

Orders

  • ['Rule 40.13 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) be dispensed with.' "The non-party, Thomas Patrick Martin, pay the applicant's costs of and incidental to the interlocutory application filed 21 July 2022 by Thomas Patrick Martin on a party-party basis." 'The costs referred to in order 2 herein be assessed on a...