Michael Wilson & Partners Ltd v Porter (No 2) [2022] FCA 901

Michael Wilson & Partners Ltd v Porter (No 2) [2022] FCA 901

MWP, through its senior counsel, was given sufficient opportunity to present its case and make submissions on the costs of the security for costs application and on the lump-sum costs orders; no denial of procedural fairness occurred. There is no basis to reconsider orders already made, as exceptional circumstances justifying such action are absent. The interlocutory application must be dismissed.

Parties
Applicant: Michael Wilson & Partners Ltd; First Respondent: Jason Lloyd Porter; Second Respondent: Richard Moretti
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 August 2022
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Post Hearing, Determination of Application to Reconsider Costs Orders
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Finality Principle, Costs, Reconsideration of Orders, Procedural Fairness, Lump Sum Costs Assessment, Security for Costs
Practice and Procedure Commercial Law Corporations Law Finality Principle Costs Reconsideration of Orders Procedural Fairness Lump Sum Costs Assessment +1 more

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 6 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Wilson & Partners Ltd

Applicant

Jason Lloyd Porter

First Respondent

Richard Moretti

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application / Post Hearing, Determination of Application to Reconsider Costs Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant was denied a sufficient opportunity to be heard on the matters in question
  2. 2 Whether there is a basis to reconsider interlocutory costs orders under r 39.05(c) of the Federal Court Rules 2011
  3. 3 Whether orders regarding lump-sum costs and costs of the security for costs application should be set aside

Ratio Decidendi

MWP, through its senior counsel, was given sufficient opportunity to present its case and make submissions on the costs of the security for costs application and on the lump-sum costs orders; no denial of procedural fairness occurred. There is no basis to reconsider orders already made, as exceptional circumstances justifying such action are absent. The interlocutory application must be dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • The applicant's interlocutory application dated 5 May 2022 be dismissed.
  • Orders 7 and 8 of 1 April 2022, vacated by order 1(a) on 3 June 2022, be reinstated.