Finch v The Heat Group Pty Ltd (No 6) [2016] FCA 390

Finch v The Heat Group Pty Ltd (No 6) [2016] FCA 390

The respondents were not entitled to costs thrown away for the Amended Statement of Claim because the consent order allowing amendment contained no reservation as to costs and the sufficiency of that pleading had never been adjudicated. The respondents were, however, substantially successful on their interlocutory application concerning the Further Amended Statement of Claim and security for costs, so costs should generally follow the event, adjusted by 10% for their failure on costs thrown away and 5% for the applicant's success in retaining her Disability Discrimination Act claim in substance, resulting in an order that the applicant pay 85% of those interlocutory costs. The respondents...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 April 2016
Procedural Posture
Costs in a Federal Court Proceeding Involving Claims Under the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (cth) / Heard on the Papers After Orders Made on 4 March 2016 and Concerning the Respondents' Interlocutory Application Filed on 28 November 2014
Outcome
Costs thrown away in respect of the Amended Statement of Claim were refused; the applicant was ordered to pay 85% of the respondents' costs of the Interlocutory Application filed on 28 November 2014 and certain costs relating to dismissed allegations; remaining costs were reserved.
Legal Topics
['costs Thrown Away' 'costs Following the Event' 'strike Out of Pleadings' 'security for Costs' 'disability Discrimination Act Claims']
['costs' 'human Rights' 'disability Discrimination'] ['costs Thrown Away' 'costs Following the Event' 'strike Out of Pleadings' 'security for Costs' 'disability Discrimination Act Claims']

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 in a Federal Court Proceeding Involving Claims Under the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (cth) / Heard on the Papers After Orders Made on 4 March 2016 and Concerning the Respondents' Interlocutory Application Filed on 28 November 2014

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the respondents were entitled to costs thrown away in respect of the applicant's Amended Statement of Claim dated 19 April 2013 when the consent order permitting amendment contained no reservation as to costs." "What costs order should be made for the respondents' Interlocutory Application filed on 28 November 2014, where the respondents substantially succeeded on strike out and security for costs but failed on costs thrown away and the applicant retained her Disability Discrimination Act claim in substance." 'What costs should be awarded in relation to the part of the proceeding dismissed by Order 4 made on 4 March 2016.']

Ratio Decidendi

The respondents were not entitled to costs thrown away for the Amended Statement of Claim because the consent order allowing amendment contained no reservation as to costs and the sufficiency of that pleading had never been adjudicated. The respondents were, however, substantially successful on their interlocutory application concerning the Further Amended Statement of Claim and security for costs, so costs should generally follow the event, adjusted by 10% for their failure on costs thrown away and 5% for the applicant's success in retaining her Disability Discrimination Act claim in substance, resulting in an order that the applicant pay 85% of those interlocutory costs. The respondents...

Court Disposition

Costs thrown away in respect of the Amended Statement of Claim were refused; the applicant was ordered to pay 85% of the respondents' costs of the Interlocutory Application filed on 28 November 2014 and certain costs relating to dismissed allegations; remaining costs were reserved.

Orders

  • ["The relief sought in para 7 of the respondents' Interlocutory Application filed on 28 November 2014 be refused." "The applicant pay 85% of the respondents' costs of their Interlocutory Application filed on 28 November 2014." "The applicant pay the respondents' costs incurred only in connection with the allegations...