Coshott v Prentice [2017] FCAFC 229

Coshott v Prentice [2017] FCAFC 229

Rule 40.27(4) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) does not inhibit the taxing officer from only allowing costs to which a party is entitled, regardless of whether objections have been made, binding the parties, not the taxing officer.

Parties
First Appellant: Ronald Michael Coshott; Second Appellant: Fewin Pty Ltd ACN 051 132 453; Respondent: Maxwell William Prentice
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 November 2017
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Costs, Taxation of Costs, Court Rules
Practice and Procedure Commercial Law Costs Taxation of Costs Court Rules

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 2 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ronald Michael Coshott

First Appellant

Fewin Pty Ltd ACN 051 132 453

Second Appellant

Maxwell William Prentice

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Proper construction of r 40.27 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) regarding taxation of costs
  2. 2 Whether the taxing officer is bound not to tax off items outside the objection

Ratio Decidendi

Rule 40.27(4) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) does not inhibit the taxing officer from only allowing costs to which a party is entitled, regardless of whether objections have been made, binding the parties, not the taxing officer.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Extension of time until 18 May 2017 for filing a notice of appeal granted
  • Draft notice of appeal is deemed filed on 18 May 2017