Hillier v Martin (No 21) [2024] FCA 546

Hillier v Martin (No 21) [2024] FCA 546

The NW Parties actively and comprehensively opposed the Iniquity Application and were unsuccessful, so costs should follow the event. However, a reduction was warranted because the NW Parties were obliged to address the 'script' email and criminal blackmail allegations, on which the Court ultimately gave no weight, and they were not responsible for costs thrown away by the adjourned Registrar hearing. The amount payable was therefore reduced to 80% of the applicant's costs of and incidental to the Iniquity Application, excluding the adjourned Registrar costs.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 May 2024
Procedural Posture
Application to Vary a Costs Order Following an Interlocutory Application Concerning Legal Professional Privilege and Iniquity / Determined on the Papers
Outcome
Application for variation of costs order granted in part.
Legal Topics
['variation of Costs Order' 'federal Court Costs Discretion' 'costs Following the Event' 'legal Professional Privilege' 'iniquity Exception' 'costs Thrown Away']
['costs' 'civil Procedure' 'evidence'] ['variation of Costs Order' 'federal Court Costs Discretion' 'costs Following the Event' 'legal Professional Privilege' 'iniquity Exception' 'costs Thrown Away']

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 to Vary a Costs Order Following an Interlocutory Application Concerning Legal Professional Privilege and Iniquity / Determined on the Papers

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the costs order requiring the fourth, fifth and sixth respondents to pay the applicant's costs of the interlocutory application should be varied." "Whether the fourth, fifth and sixth respondents' role in the Iniquity Application justified making the first and second respondents pay all or most of the applicant's costs." "Whether the fourth, fifth and sixth respondents should receive a reduction for issues concerning the 'script' email and criminal blackmail allegations on which the Court gave no weight." 'Whether costs thrown away by the adjourned Registrar hearing on 6 September 2023 should be borne by the fourth, fifth and sixth respondents.']

Ratio Decidendi

The NW Parties actively and comprehensively opposed the Iniquity Application and were unsuccessful, so costs should follow the event. However, a reduction was warranted because the NW Parties were obliged to address the 'script' email and criminal blackmail allegations, on which the Court ultimately gave no weight, and they were not responsible for costs thrown away by the adjourned Registrar hearing. The amount payable was therefore reduced to 80% of the applicant's costs of and incidental to the Iniquity Application, excluding the adjourned Registrar costs.

Court Disposition

Application for variation of costs order granted in part.

Orders

  • ["The fourth to sixth respondents pay 80% of the applicant's costs of and incidental to the applicant's interlocutory application filed 15 August 2023." 'For the avoidance of doubt, those costs do not include the costs thrown away of the adjourned application before the Registrar listed for 6 September 2023; those...