Grey v Mango Pre Paid Calling Cards Pty Ltd [2005] FCA 362

Grey v Mango Pre Paid Calling Cards Pty Ltd [2005] FCA 362

In light of the first respondent's conduct, the timing and content of its application, and the relative prejudice, the court determined it would be fair to depart from the usual rule and vary costs orders so that the first respondent pays the applicants' costs up to the hearing of the application to set aside, and the applicants pay the first respondent's costs from the hearing of 22 July 2004 and subsequently to the date of judgment.

Parties
Applicant: John Grey; Applicant: Angela Grey; Applicant: Jeremy Grey; Applicant: Linda Grey; First Respondent: Mango Pre Paid Calling Cards Pty Ltd; Second Respondent: Susan Vial; Third Respondent: Nicholas Rhodin; Fourth Respondent: Franklyn Ernest Yates
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 April 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil / Post Judgment Costs Determination
Outcome
costs orders varied; both parties to bear costs for different segments of the proceeding
Legal Topics
Costs, Default Judgment, Discretion in Costs Orders
Civil Procedure Costs Default Judgment Discretion in Costs Orders

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 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Grey

Applicant

Angela Grey

Applicant

Jeremy Grey

Applicant

Linda Grey

Applicant

Mango Pre Paid Calling Cards Pty Ltd

First Respondent

Susan Vial

Second Respondent

Nicholas Rhodin

Third Respondent

Franklyn Ernest Yates

Fourth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil / Post Judgment Costs Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Should costs follow the event where default judgment has been set aside?
  2. 2 Is there justification for departing from the usual costs rule based on conduct and circumstances?

Ratio Decidendi

In light of the first respondent's conduct, the timing and content of its application, and the relative prejudice, the court determined it would be fair to depart from the usual rule and vary costs orders so that the first respondent pays the applicants' costs up to the hearing of the application to set aside, and the applicants pay the first respondent's costs from the hearing of 22 July 2004 and subsequently to the date of judgment.

Court Disposition

costs orders varied; both parties to bear costs for different segments of the proceeding

Orders

  • First respondent to pay applicants' costs up to the hearing of the application to set aside the judgment in default.
  • Applicants to pay first respondent's costs of the application to set aside the default judgment including the hearing of 22 July 2004 and subsequently to the date of judgment.