Dyer v Chrysanthou (No 3) (Costs) [2021] FCA 642

Dyer v Chrysanthou (No 3) (Costs) [2021] FCA 642

Because the applicant was wholly successful, the ordinary rule that costs follow the event applied. The first respondent was not relieved from paying costs despite her stated submission to the Court's orders, given the context including her pre-proceeding adversarial position and refusal to accept the relevant risk...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 June 2021
Procedural Posture
Costs in Federal Court Proceedings Following Injunction Decision / Determined on the Papers After the Applicant's Success in Dyer V Chrysanthou (no 2) (injunction) [2021] FCA 641
Outcome
The first and second respondents were ordered to pay the applicant's costs of the proceedings.
Legal Topics
['costs Follow the Event' 'submitting Notice' 'costs Discretion Under S 43 of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (cth)' 'late Evidence' 'concise Statement' 'evidence Act Exclusion Application']
['costs' 'federal Court Procedure'] ['costs Follow the Event' 'submitting Notice' 'costs Discretion Under S 43 of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (cth)' 'late Evidence' 'concise Statement' 'evidence Act Exclusion Application']

Source-derived case record

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 Federal Court Proceedings Following Injunction Decision / Determined on the Papers After the Applicant's Success in Dyer V Chrysanthou (no 2) (injunction) [2021] FCA 641

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the first respondent should be relieved from paying the applicant's costs because she submitted to the orders the Court deemed fit and took no active part in the substantive dispute." "Whether the second respondent should pay only 70% of the applicant's costs because of the service and content of Mr Hooke's affidavit in reply." 'Whether the filing of a submitting notice creates a prima facie position that no costs should be awarded against that party from the date of the notice.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because the applicant was wholly successful, the ordinary rule that costs follow the event applied. The first respondent was not relieved from paying costs despite her stated submission to the Court's orders, given the context including her pre-proceeding adversarial position and refusal to accept the relevant risk or administration of justice concerns. The second respondent's proposed 30% reduction was rejected because Mr Hooke's affidavit was not served late, did not amount to an amendment of the case, did not require amendment of the concise statement, and did not justify reducing costs even if it had affected the hearing length.

Court Disposition

The first and second respondents were ordered to pay the applicant's costs of the proceedings.

Orders

  • ["The first and second respondents pay the applicant's costs of the proceedings."]