MLC Limited v Crickitt (No 2) [2017] FCA 937

MLC Limited v Crickitt (No 2) [2017] FCA 937

Although r 8.05 required material to be put before the Court and the work of solicitors and counsel was of high quality, the s 215 application was tolerably straightforward and costs of over $18,000 for preparation were not justified to be charged against the policy. The appropriate proposed order was that the applicant have its costs of and incidental to the application in the sum of $13,000.00, plus any Court fees imposed on the applicant, subject to the parties being heard on the form of order.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 August 2017
Procedural Posture
Application Under S 215 of the Life Insurance Act 1995 (cth) Concerning Life Insurance Death Benefit Moneys / Costs Determined on the Papers After First Case Management Hearing; Parties Given Seven Days to File Submissions on the Proposed Costs Order
Outcome
The Court did not immediately enter the proposed costs order; it ordered that the parties have seven days to file written submissions as to why the proposed orders should not be made.
Legal Topics
['life Insurance Death Benefit' 'application Under S 215 of the Life Insurance Act 1995 (cth)' 'indemnity Costs' 'costs Payable From Policy Moneys' 'forfeiture Rule' 'originating Application Requirements']
['insurance Law' 'civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['life Insurance Death Benefit' 'application Under S 215 of the Life Insurance Act 1995 (cth)' 'indemnity Costs' 'costs Payable From Policy Moneys' 'forfeiture Rule' 'originating Application Requirements']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application Under S 215 of the Life Insurance Act 1995 (cth) Concerning Life Insurance Death Benefit Moneys / Costs Determined on the Papers After First Case Management Hearing; Parties Given Seven Days to File Submissions on the Proposed Costs Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['What costs order should be made after substantial disposition of the s 215 application.' 'Whether the applicant insurer should recover its costs on an indemnity basis from the death benefit moneys, and in what amount.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although r 8.05 required material to be put before the Court and the work of solicitors and counsel was of high quality, the s 215 application was tolerably straightforward and costs of over $18,000 for preparation were not justified to be charged against the policy. The appropriate proposed order was that the applicant have its costs of and incidental to the application in the sum of $13,000.00, plus any Court fees imposed on the applicant, subject to the parties being heard on the form of order.

Court Disposition

The Court did not immediately enter the proposed costs order; it ordered that the parties have seven days to file written submissions as to why the proposed orders should not be made.

Orders

  • ['The parties have seven days to file written submissions of no more than two pages as to why the proposed orders should not be made.' 'Proposed order: the applicant have its costs of and incidental to this application in the sum of $13,000.00, plus the costs of any Court fees imposed on the applicant.']