Leigh-Mardon Corporation Ltd v Titan Corporation Ltd [1996] FCA 1195

Leigh-Mardon Corporation Ltd v Titan Corporation Ltd [1996] FCA 1195

The respondents were entitled to costs thrown away by the applicant's amendments to the statement of claim, and because those costs arose from discrete amendment indulgences they should be taxed and paid forthwith under Order 62 rule 3 notwithstanding that the proceeding had not concluded. However, the vacation of the trial date and the directions hearings formed part of ordinary case management in a complex proceeding, so no special costs orders were appropriate beyond costs in the cause.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 June 1996
Procedural Posture
Motion on Notice Seeking Orders as to Costs in a Federal Court Proceeding / Interlocutory
Outcome
Motion allowed in part; otherwise refused.
Legal Topics
['interlocutory Costs' 'costs Thrown Away' 'amendment of Pleadings' 'taxation and Payment of Costs Forthwith' 'case Management Directions']
['civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['interlocutory Costs' 'costs Thrown Away' 'amendment of Pleadings' 'taxation and Payment of Costs Forthwith' 'case Management Directions']

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

Motion on Notice Seeking Orders as to Costs in a Federal Court Proceeding / Interlocutory

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether costs thrown away by amendments to the statement of claim should be ordered or confirmed in favour of the respondents.' "Whether the respondents' costs thrown away by amendments should be taxed and paid forthwith before the principal proceeding is concluded." 'Whether the respondents should receive costs thrown away by reason of the vacation of the trial date of 18 March 1996.' 'Whether special costs orders should be made for directions hearings on 30 and 31 January and 29 February.']

Ratio Decidendi

The respondents were entitled to costs thrown away by the applicant's amendments to the statement of claim, and because those costs arose from discrete amendment indulgences they should be taxed and paid forthwith under Order 62 rule 3 notwithstanding that the proceeding had not concluded. However, the vacation of the trial date and the directions hearings formed part of ordinary case management in a complex proceeding, so no special costs orders were appropriate beyond costs in the cause.

Court Disposition

Motion allowed in part; otherwise refused.

Orders

  • ["The costs awarded by the orders made on 14 September 1993, 14 November 1995 and 29 February 1996, insofar as they relate to the respondents' costs thrown away, are to be taxed and paid forthwith notwithstanding that the proceeding has not been concluded." 'The application for costs thrown away by reason of the...