Mudginberri Station Pty Ltd v. Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union & Ors [1986] FCA 445

Mudginberri Station Pty Ltd v. Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union & Ors [1986] FCA 445

The court exercised its discretion not to order costs on a solicitor and client basis given the lack of sufficient justification, including mitigation and deliberate conduct. No part of applicant's costs were denied despite amendments and failure on subsidiary issues due to the complexity and substantial success. As the claim against the second to fifth respondents was dismissed, but no separate costs were incurred, no order as to their costs was made.

Parties
Applicant: Mudginberri Station Pty Limited; First Respondent: The Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union; Second Respondent: Jack O'Toole; Third Respondent: Trevor Surplife; Fourth Respondent: Dick Annear; Fifth Respondent: Pat Roughan
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 October 1986
Procedural Posture
Damages Claim / Costs Determination Following Judgment
Outcome
First respondent to pay applicant's costs; no order as to costs for second, third, fourth and fifth respondents.
Legal Topics
Solicitor and Client Costs, Party and Party Costs, Damages, Amendments
Costs Trade Practices Solicitor and Client Costs Party and Party Costs Damages Amendments

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 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mudginberri Station Pty Limited

Applicant

The Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union

First Respondent

Jack O'Toole

Second Respondent

Trevor Surplife

Third Respondent

Dick Annear

Fourth Respondent

Pat Roughan

Fifth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Damages Claim / Costs Determination Following Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether costs should be ordered on a solicitor and client basis rather than a party and party basis
  2. 2 Whether the applicant should be deprived of any part of its costs due to amended claims and subsidiary issues not succeeded
  3. 3 Proper costs order for respondents against whom the claim for damages was dismissed

Ratio Decidendi

The court exercised its discretion not to order costs on a solicitor and client basis given the lack of sufficient justification, including mitigation and deliberate conduct. No part of applicant's costs were denied despite amendments and failure on subsidiary issues due to the complexity and substantial success. As the claim against the second to fifth respondents was dismissed, but no separate costs were incurred, no order as to their costs was made.

Court Disposition

First respondent to pay applicant's costs; no order as to costs for second, third, fourth and fifth respondents.

Orders

  • First respondent to pay applicant's costs.
  • No order as to the costs of the second, third, fourth and fifth respondents.