Kingswood Distillery Pty Ltd v Comptroller-General of Customs & Ors [1995] FCA 190

Kingswood Distillery Pty Ltd v Comptroller-General of Customs & Ors [1995] FCA 190

Because the applicant had some success, including successful interlocutory relief and the first respondent later no longer pursued a major issue, but the proceedings proceeded in a dilatory fashion with some responsibility attributable to the applicant and the concessions did not establish that the proceedings were justified or would have succeeded, it was appropriate to award the applicant two fifths of its costs of the proceeding subject to earlier costs orders against it, and half its costs of the application for costs.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 March 1995
Procedural Posture
Applications for Costs in Federal Court Proceedings NG 812 and NG 833 of 1992 / Costs Determination
Outcome
Applicant awarded part of its costs of the proceedings and part of its costs of the application for costs.
Legal Topics
['discretion as to Costs' 'apportionment of Costs' 'interlocutory Relief' 'distillation Act Collector Duty' 'discontinued or Not Pursued Issues']
['civil Procedure' 'costs' 'customs and Excise'] ['discretion as to Costs' 'apportionment of Costs' 'interlocutory Relief' 'distillation Act Collector Duty' 'discontinued or Not Pursued Issues']

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

Applications for Costs in Federal Court Proceedings NG 812 and NG 833 of 1992 / Costs Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicant should receive costs of proceedings NG 812 and NG 833 of 1992.' "How costs should be apportioned having regard to the applicant's partial success, the conduct of the proceedings, and issues no longer pursued by the first respondent." 'Whether the applicant should receive costs of the application for costs.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because the applicant had some success, including successful interlocutory relief and the first respondent later no longer pursued a major issue, but the proceedings proceeded in a dilatory fashion with some responsibility attributable to the applicant and the concessions did not establish that the proceedings were justified or would have succeeded, it was appropriate to award the applicant two fifths of its costs of the proceeding subject to earlier costs orders against it, and half its costs of the application for costs.

Court Disposition

Applicant awarded part of its costs of the proceedings and part of its costs of the application for costs.

Orders

  • ['The applicant have two fifths of its costs of the proceeding, subject to the orders for costs against it that have been made on certain particular occasions, which will have to be taxed or otherwise quantified.' 'The applicant have half its costs of the application for costs.']