Coshott v Prentice (No 2) [2018] FCAFC 221

Coshott v Prentice (No 2) [2018] FCAFC 221

A consolidated costs order was inappropriate because it would cover costs of all three separate appeals and wrongly impose on each appellant costs incurred in proceedings to which that appellant was not a party. A lump sum costs order was also inappropriate because the Full Court would need to allocate costs between the appeals, a task complicated by overlap in written and oral submissions and more appropriately undertaken by a taxing officer; in these circumstances the supposed benefits of avoiding taxation were illusory.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 December 2018
Procedural Posture
Costs Application in Three Appeals / Interlocutory Application for Lump Sum Costs Order Determined on the Papers After the Appeals Were Dismissed
Outcome
The respondent's application for costs awarded as a lump sum was dismissed, and the respondent was ordered to pay the appellants' costs of the interlocutory application.
Legal Topics
['lump Sum Costs Orders' 'taxation of Costs' 'consolidated Costs Orders' 'appeal Costs']
['costs' 'civil Procedure' 'commercial and Corporations' 'general and Personal Insolvency'] ['lump Sum Costs Orders' 'taxation of Costs' 'consolidated Costs Orders' 'appeal 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

Costs Application in Three Appeals / Interlocutory Application for Lump Sum Costs Order Determined on the Papers After the Appeals Were Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the respondent's costs of three appeals heard together should be awarded as a lump sum under r 40.02(b) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth)." 'Whether it would be appropriate to make a consolidated costs order across three separate appeals commenced by different appellants.']

Ratio Decidendi

A consolidated costs order was inappropriate because it would cover costs of all three separate appeals and wrongly impose on each appellant costs incurred in proceedings to which that appellant was not a party. A lump sum costs order was also inappropriate because the Full Court would need to allocate costs between the appeals, a task complicated by overlap in written and oral submissions and more appropriately undertaken by a taxing officer; in these circumstances the supposed benefits of avoiding taxation were illusory.

Court Disposition

The respondent's application for costs awarded as a lump sum was dismissed, and the respondent was ordered to pay the appellants' costs of the interlocutory application.

Orders

  • ["The respondent's application for costs awarded as a lump sum be dismissed." "The respondent pay the appellant's costs of the interlocutory application."]