Consolidated Transport Industries Ltd & Anor v Lindner, Noel [1997] FCA 1359

Consolidated Transport Industries Ltd & Anor v Lindner, Noel [1997] FCA 1359

The applicants should receive their costs of obtaining orders 1, 2 and 3 made on 24 July 1997, limited to the period ending on that date, as the urgency and inability to obtain undertake meant seeking urgent relief was justified. No order for costs is made on the discharged orders or beyond what is already awarded, as the outcome was inconclusive and the court does not have confidence that one party would almost certainly have succeeded had the matter gone fully to trial.

Parties
First Applicant: Consolidated Transport Industries Ltd; Second Applicant: Brian McCaw; Respondent: Noel Lindner
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 November 1997
Procedural Posture
Application for Costs / Post Interlocutory, Final Determination of Costs
Outcome
Partial award of costs; discharged interlocutory orders; otherwise, no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
Costs, Award of Costs, Exercise of Discretion in Costs
Practice and Procedure Costs Award of Costs Exercise of Discretion in Costs

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Consolidated Transport Industries Ltd

First Applicant

Brian McCaw

Second Applicant

Noel Lindner

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Costs / Post Interlocutory, Final Determination of Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants should have their costs of the whole proceedings or only limited costs; Whether any order for costs should be made in respect of discharged interlocutory orders

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants should receive their costs of obtaining orders 1, 2 and 3 made on 24 July 1997, limited to the period ending on that date, as the urgency and inability to obtain undertake meant seeking urgent relief was justified. No order for costs is made on the discharged orders or beyond what is already awarded, as the outcome was inconclusive and the court does not have confidence that one party would almost certainly have succeeded had the matter gone fully to trial.

Court Disposition

Partial award of costs; discharged interlocutory orders; otherwise, no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The respondent pay the applicants' costs of obtaining orders 1, 2 and 3 of the orders made on 24 July 1997; those costs to be confined to the period ending on 24 July 1997.
  • Otherwise no order as to costs.