Cribb (Liquidator) v Jackson [2019] FCA 1632
The intention behind the original costs order was that payment should follow determination of the main action rather than operate forthwith. The interlocutory costs orders, being subject to variation, should be amended to effectuate that intention, preventing enforcement prior to the main proceeding's outcome.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 02 October 2019
- Procedural Posture
- Corporate Insolvency Claim and Cross Claim / Interlocutory Application to Vary Costs Order
- Outcome
- Application to vary costs order granted
- Legal Topics
- ['time for Payment of Costs' 'variation of Interlocutory Orders' 'discontinuance of Cross Claim' 'liquidator Duties' 'director Duties']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Corporate Insolvency Claim and Cross Claim / Interlocutory Application to Vary Costs Order
Legal Issues
- 1 ["Whether the previous costs order made upon discontinuance of the defendant's cross-claim should be varied so that costs are payable only upon determination of the application in the main proceeding"]
Ratio Decidendi
The intention behind the original costs order was that payment should follow determination of the main action rather than operate forthwith. The interlocutory costs orders, being subject to variation, should be amended to effectuate that intention, preventing enforcement prior to the main proceeding's outcome.
Court Disposition
Application to vary costs order granted
Orders
- ['The costs order of 21 March 2019 is varied so that payment of costs is to occur upon determination of the application in WAD153/2018.' 'Case management hearing adjourned to 9.15 am on 16 October 2019.']
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment