Shaw v MAB Corporation Pty Ltd (No 2) [2014] FCA 227

Shaw v MAB Corporation Pty Ltd (No 2) [2014] FCA 227

Although the respondents were entitled to their costs, indemnity costs were not justified on the facts of the leave application. The costs discretion had to be exercised afresh for the extension of time and leave applications. Relevant factors included that Mr Shaw obtained an extension of time, was cooperative in procedural steps, did not waste time or resources, made submissions opposing indemnity costs, was self-represented, and raised some points that were not fanciful. Seeking leave to appeal from a summary dismissal that ended his proceeding was not unreasonable in itself. His conduct was not so unreasonable as to justify indemnity costs, so the respondents' costs were to be...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 March 2014
Procedural Posture
Practice and Procedure; Costs / Costs Determination Following Dismissal of Application for Leave to Appeal and Grant of Extension of Time to Apply for Leave to Appeal
Outcome
The applicant was ordered to pay the respondents' costs of and incidental to the application for an extension of time and the application for leave to appeal, with those costs to be assessed on a party-party basis if not agreed; indemnity costs were refused.
Legal Topics
['indemnity Costs' 'party Party Costs' 'self Represented Litigants' 'leave to Appeal' 'extension of Time' 'summary Judgment' 'abuse of Process']
['practice and Procedure' 'costs'] ['indemnity Costs' 'party Party Costs' 'self Represented Litigants' 'leave to Appeal' 'extension of Time' 'summary Judgment' 'abuse of Process']

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

Practice and Procedure; Costs / Costs Determination Following Dismissal of Application for Leave to Appeal and Grant of Extension of Time to Apply for Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the successful respondents should receive their costs of the application for an extension of time and application for leave to appeal.' 'Whether those costs should be assessed on an indemnity basis or on a party-party basis.' "Whether the applicant's status as a self-represented litigant and the circumstances of the leave application weighed against indemnity costs."]

Ratio Decidendi

Although the respondents were entitled to their costs, indemnity costs were not justified on the facts of the leave application. The costs discretion had to be exercised afresh for the extension of time and leave applications. Relevant factors included that Mr Shaw obtained an extension of time, was cooperative in procedural steps, did not waste time or resources, made submissions opposing indemnity costs, was self-represented, and raised some points that were not fanciful. Seeking leave to appeal from a summary dismissal that ended his proceeding was not unreasonable in itself. His conduct was not so unreasonable as to justify indemnity costs, so the respondents' costs were to be...

Court Disposition

The applicant was ordered to pay the respondents' costs of and incidental to the application for an extension of time and the application for leave to appeal, with those costs to be assessed on a party-party basis if not agreed; indemnity costs were refused.

Orders

  • ["The applicant is to pay the respondents' costs of and incidental to the application for an extension of time in which to seek leave to appeal, and the application for leave to appeal." 'The costs referred to in paragraph 1 of these orders, if not otherwise agreed, are to be assessed on a party-party basis.']