Macteldir Pty Ltd v Dimoski [2006] FCA 489

Macteldir Pty Ltd v Dimoski [2006] FCA 489

The order dismissing Macteldir Pty Ltd's motion for costs indemnity against its solicitor and barrister was final, as it finally determined the principal cause between them, and leave to appeal was not required; Macteldir therefore appealed as of right.

Parties
Applicant: Macteldir Pty Ltd; First Respondent: Mile Dimovski; Second Respondent: Rockdale Ilinden Soccer Club Inc; Solicitor (non Party for Costs Application): James Roskov; Barrister (non Party for Costs Application): John De Meyrick
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 May 2006
Procedural Posture
Appeal (practice and Procedure Costs) / Determination of Whether Leave to Appeal Required; Costs Orders
Outcome
Leave to appeal not required; time for seeking leave to appeal extended; applicant's notice of appeal to stand; costs orders against legal practitioners
Legal Topics
Costs, Final Vs Interlocutory Orders, Leave to Appeal
Practice and Procedure Costs Final Vs Interlocutory Orders Leave to Appeal

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 5 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Macteldir Pty Ltd

Applicant

Mile Dimovski

First Respondent

Rockdale Ilinden Soccer Club Inc

Second Respondent

James Roskov

Solicitor (non Party for Costs Application)

John De Meyrick

Barrister (non Party for Costs Application)

Procedural Posture

Appeal (practice and Procedure Costs) / Determination of Whether Leave to Appeal Required; Costs Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 whether order dismissing motion for costs against solicitor and barrister was final or interlocutory for purposes of right of appeal
  2. 2 whether leave to appeal was required

Ratio Decidendi

The order dismissing Macteldir Pty Ltd's motion for costs indemnity against its solicitor and barrister was final, as it finally determined the principal cause between them, and leave to appeal was not required; Macteldir therefore appealed as of right.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal not required; time for seeking leave to appeal extended; applicant's notice of appeal to stand; costs orders against legal practitioners

Orders

  • Time for the seeking of leave to appeal from orders made on 2 November 2005 in NSD 207 of 2001 extended to 23 November 2005; applicant has leave to appeal nunc pro tunc so that notice of appeal filed 23 November 2005 be taken to have been filed with leave
  • James Roskov and John De Meyrick to pay applicant's costs of the application for extension of time and leave to appeal