Olson v Keefe (No 4) [2019] FCA 691

Olson v Keefe (No 4) [2019] FCA 691

Mr Olson's repeated attempts, as a legally represented party, to replead claims despite prior objections and earlier rulings produced a second further amended statement of claim with sufficient deficiencies to make his conduct unreasonable, warranting indemnity costs for the respondents in relation to the application to file that pleading. However, although there had been delay, the circumstances did not justify departing from r 40.13 because immediate taxation or payment could stymie continuation of the proceeding by a natural person and was not in the interests of justice.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 May 2019
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Costs Application in Proceeding Principally Pleaded as Breach of Contract Arising From an Employment Relationship / Determined on the Papers After Refusal of Leave to File a Further Amended Statement of Claim
Outcome
Application allowed in part: indemnity costs ordered for the respondents on the application to file the further amended statement of claim, but costs not payable forthwith; costs of the costs application ordered on an ordinary basis.
Legal Topics
['indemnity Costs' 'interlocutory Costs' 'pleadings Amendment' 'further Amended Statement of Claim' 'costs Payable Forthwith' 'federal Court Costs Discretion']
['costs' 'civil Procedure' 'employment & Industrial Relations' 'contract'] ['indemnity Costs' 'interlocutory Costs' 'pleadings Amendment' 'further Amended Statement of Claim' 'costs Payable Forthwith' 'federal Court Costs Discretion']

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

Interlocutory Costs Application in Proceeding Principally Pleaded as Breach of Contract Arising From an Employment Relationship / Determined on the Papers After Refusal of Leave to File a Further Amended Statement of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the first, third and fourth respondents' costs of and incidental to the applicant's request to file a further amended statement of claim should be awarded on an indemnity basis." 'Whether any indemnity costs order, and the costs of the costs application, should be payable forthwith.' "Whether s 570 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) limited the Court's power to award costs."]

Ratio Decidendi

Mr Olson's repeated attempts, as a legally represented party, to replead claims despite prior objections and earlier rulings produced a second further amended statement of claim with sufficient deficiencies to make his conduct unreasonable, warranting indemnity costs for the respondents in relation to the application to file that pleading. However, although there had been delay, the circumstances did not justify departing from r 40.13 because immediate taxation or payment could stymie continuation of the proceeding by a natural person and was not in the interests of justice.

Court Disposition

Application allowed in part: indemnity costs ordered for the respondents on the application to file the further amended statement of claim, but costs not payable forthwith; costs of the costs application ordered on an ordinary basis.

Orders

  • ["Order 2 made on 18 December 2018 be varied such that it reads: The applicant pay the first, third and fourth respondents' costs of and incidental to the applicant's request to file a further amended statement of claim on an indemnity basis, as agreed or assessed." "The applicant pay the first, third and fourth...