Michael Wilson & Partners Ltd v Porter (No 3) [2022] FCA 998

Michael Wilson & Partners Ltd v Porter (No 3) [2022] FCA 998

The respondents were wholly successful because MWP's interlocutory application was dismissed and MWP established no basis to reconsider, rescind or vary the orders. Indemnity costs were warranted because the interlocutory application was shockingly poorly prepared and run, substantially delayed, supported by irrelevant material, prolonged by irrelevant submissions and repeated adjournment requests, included scandalous allegations that ought never to have been made, and was hopeless and should never have been brought. Lump-sum determination was appropriate because it was sensible, efficient, consistent with the existing lump-sum costs process and the Costs Practice Note, and MWP identified...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 August 2022
Procedural Posture
Application for Costs of an Interlocutory Application / Determined on the Papers After Dismissal of the Applicant's Interlocutory Application
Outcome
Application for indemnity and lump-sum costs granted; the applicant ordered to pay the respondents' costs of the interlocutory application filed on 6 May 2022 on an indemnity basis, with those costs to be determined on a lump-sum basis.
Legal Topics
['indemnity Costs' 'lump Sum Costs' 'interlocutory Application' 'overarching Purpose' 'apprehended Bias' 'solicitor Conduct']
['costs' 'federal Court Practice and Procedure' 'commercial and Corporations' 'general and Personal Insolvency'] ['indemnity Costs' 'lump Sum Costs' 'interlocutory Application' 'overarching Purpose' 'apprehended Bias' 'solicitor Conduct']

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

Application for Costs of an Interlocutory Application / Determined on the Papers After Dismissal of the Applicant's Interlocutory Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the applicant should pay the respondents' costs of the interlocutory application filed on 6 May 2022." "Whether the respondents' costs should be payable on an indemnity basis." "Whether the respondents' costs should be determined on a lump-sum basis."]

Ratio Decidendi

The respondents were wholly successful because MWP's interlocutory application was dismissed and MWP established no basis to reconsider, rescind or vary the orders. Indemnity costs were warranted because the interlocutory application was shockingly poorly prepared and run, substantially delayed, supported by irrelevant material, prolonged by irrelevant submissions and repeated adjournment requests, included scandalous allegations that ought never to have been made, and was hopeless and should never have been brought. Lump-sum determination was appropriate because it was sensible, efficient, consistent with the existing lump-sum costs process and the Costs Practice Note, and MWP identified...

Court Disposition

Application for indemnity and lump-sum costs granted; the applicant ordered to pay the respondents' costs of the interlocutory application filed on 6 May 2022 on an indemnity basis, with those costs to be determined on a lump-sum basis.

Orders

  • ["The applicant pay the respondents' costs of the applicant's interlocutory application filed on 6 May 2022 on an indemnity basis." "The respondents' costs of the interlocutory application be determined on a lump-sum basis." 'On or before 16 September 2022, the respondents file and serve an affidavit constituting a...