O'Neill v Piscopo (No 4) [2012] FCA 1225

O'Neill v Piscopo (No 4) [2012] FCA 1225

The circumstances did not warrant an order for indemnity costs as the grounds of appeal were not so without foundation that an appellant properly advised would have known there was no chance of success, there was insufficient proof of ulterior motives, and both sides were represented by experienced counsel and solicitors.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 November 2012
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Costs Determination After Appeal Dismissed
Outcome
Appellant to pay first respondent's costs on a party and party basis, to be taxed if not otherwise agreed.
Legal Topics
['costs' 'indemnity Costs' 'appeal Procedure']
['civil Procedure'] ['costs' 'indemnity Costs' 'appeal Procedure']

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

Appeal / Costs Determination After Appeal Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the appellant should pay costs on an indemnity basis or party and party basis after dismissal of appeal.']

Ratio Decidendi

The circumstances did not warrant an order for indemnity costs as the grounds of appeal were not so without foundation that an appellant properly advised would have known there was no chance of success, there was insufficient proof of ulterior motives, and both sides were represented by experienced counsel and solicitors.

Court Disposition

Appellant to pay first respondent's costs on a party and party basis, to be taxed if not otherwise agreed.

Orders

  • ['The appellant pay the costs of the first respondent on a party and party basis, to be taxed if not otherwise agreed.']