Bell v Macquarie Bank Ltd [2000] FCA 1521

Bell v Macquarie Bank Ltd [2000] FCA 1521

Although discontinuance ordinarily required the applicants to pay the respondents' costs, it was reasonable for the applicants, given statutory limitation periods and the concurrent Industrial Relations Commission proceeding, to have commenced the Federal Court proceeding and sought its deferral. The later discontinuance did not retrospectively justify the respondents' opposition to deferral or require a different view of the costs of the 15 May 1998 motion. However, apart from the costs of that motion and the respondents' abandoned motions, there was no basis to displace the ordinary rule that the discontinuing applicants pay the respondents' costs of the proceeding.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 October 2000
Procedural Posture
Federal Court Proceeding Concerning Costs After Discontinuance / Notice of Motion Heard After Applicants Filed a Notice of Discontinuance
Outcome
Costs orders made following discontinuance; applicants awarded costs of specified motions, but otherwise ordered to pay respondents' costs of the proceeding.
Legal Topics
['discontinuance' 'costs Discretion' 'interlocutory Motion Costs' 'concurrent Proceedings']
['civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['discontinuance' 'costs Discretion' 'interlocutory Motion Costs' 'concurrent Proceedings']

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

Federal Court Proceeding Concerning Costs After Discontinuance / Notice of Motion Heard After Applicants Filed a Notice of Discontinuance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the respondents should pay the applicants' costs of, and thrown away on account of, the respondents' abandoned amended notice of motion filed on 14 September 2000 and notice of motion filed on 16 August 2000." 'Whether the applicants should receive their costs of the notice of motion filed on 24 March 1998 and heard on 15 May 1998 despite having discontinued the proceeding.' 'Whether the ordinary costs consequence of discontinuance under the Federal Court Rules should otherwise be displaced.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although discontinuance ordinarily required the applicants to pay the respondents' costs, it was reasonable for the applicants, given statutory limitation periods and the concurrent Industrial Relations Commission proceeding, to have commenced the Federal Court proceeding and sought its deferral. The later discontinuance did not retrospectively justify the respondents' opposition to deferral or require a different view of the costs of the 15 May 1998 motion. However, apart from the costs of that motion and the respondents' abandoned motions, there was no basis to displace the ordinary rule that the discontinuing applicants pay the respondents' costs of the proceeding.

Court Disposition

Costs orders made following discontinuance; applicants awarded costs of specified motions, but otherwise ordered to pay respondents' costs of the proceeding.

Orders

  • ["The respondents pay the applicants' costs of, and thrown away on account of, the respondents' amended notice of motion filed on 14 September 2000 and their notice of motion filed on 16 August 2000." "The respondents pay the applicants' costs of the applicants' notice of motion filed on 24 March 1998 and heard on...