Day v Mercedes-Benz Australia Pty Ltd [2010] FCA 1183

Day v Mercedes-Benz Australia Pty Ltd [2010] FCA 1183

The application to vary the costs order was dismissed because there was an unexplained and extensive delay by the third applicant in seeking the variation, and no compelling justification for the delay was provided.

Parties
First Applicant: Graeme Day; Second Applicant: Fyshwick Properties Pty Ltd; Third Applicant: Canberra Star Motors Pty Ltd (in liq); Respondent: Mercedes-Benz Australia Pacific Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 November 2010
Procedural Posture
Application / Judgment on Application to Vary Costs Order
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Variation of Costs Orders, Delay in Making Applications, Reserved Costs
Civil Procedure Variation of Costs Orders Delay in Making Applications Reserved Costs

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Graeme Day

First Applicant

Fyshwick Properties Pty Ltd

Second Applicant

Canberra Star Motors Pty Ltd (in liq)

Third Applicant

Mercedes-Benz Australia Pacific Pty Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application / Judgment on Application to Vary Costs Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the third applicant's delay in seeking variation of a costs order justifies refusal to vary the order

Ratio Decidendi

The application to vary the costs order was dismissed because there was an unexplained and extensive delay by the third applicant in seeking the variation, and no compelling justification for the delay was provided.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • The third applicant's application for a variation of the costs order made on 8 May 2009 is dismissed.