Orrcon Operations Pty Ltd v Capital Steel & Pipe Pty Ltd (No 2) [2008] FCA 24

Orrcon Operations Pty Ltd v Capital Steel & Pipe Pty Ltd (No 2) [2008] FCA 24

Because Orrcon failed to obtain interlocutory relief, failed to establish a serious question to be tried on unconscionable conduct, and the balance of convenience favoured refusal, it was appropriate that Orrcon pay Capital Steel's costs. Orrcon's success on defective pipe was only one element of the unconscionable conduct issue and did not justify a separate or reduced costs order. Although the interlocutory determination made the Westpac letter of credit final relief otiose, Capital Steel did not establish unreasonable conduct and possible prejudice to set-off meant costs should not be taxed and paid forthwith. The allegation of knowledge against Mr Studdy was not fraud and the...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 January 2008
Procedural Posture
Costs Determination Following Dismissed Application for Interlocutory Relief / Reserved Question of Costs After Interlocutory Relief Dismissed
Outcome
Orrcon ordered to pay the first and second respondents' costs and the Commonwealth Bank of Australia's costs of the interlocutory application on a party and party basis; no order as to costs between Orrcon and Westpac Banking Corporation.
Legal Topics
['costs of Interlocutory Application' 'party and Party Costs' 'indemnity Costs' 'costs Taxed and Paid Forthwith' 'costs Where Party Joined to Protect Its Interests']
['procedure' 'costs'] ['costs of Interlocutory Application' 'party and Party Costs' 'indemnity Costs' 'costs Taxed and Paid Forthwith' 'costs Where Party Joined to Protect Its Interests']

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

Costs Determination Following Dismissed Application for Interlocutory Relief / Reserved Question of Costs After Interlocutory Relief Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether Orrcon should pay the first and second respondents' costs of the dismissed application for interlocutory relief." "Whether any costs order should reflect Orrcon's success in establishing a serious question to be tried that the pipe was defective." "Whether Capital Steel's costs should be taxed and paid forthwith before the principal proceeding is concluded." "Whether Capital Steel's costs should be taxed on an indemnity basis." "Whether Orrcon should pay the Commonwealth Bank of Australia's costs of the interlocutory application."]

Ratio Decidendi

Because Orrcon failed to obtain interlocutory relief, failed to establish a serious question to be tried on unconscionable conduct, and the balance of convenience favoured refusal, it was appropriate that Orrcon pay Capital Steel's costs. Orrcon's success on defective pipe was only one element of the unconscionable conduct issue and did not justify a separate or reduced costs order. Although the interlocutory determination made the Westpac letter of credit final relief otiose, Capital Steel did not establish unreasonable conduct and possible prejudice to set-off meant costs should not be taxed and paid forthwith. The allegation of knowledge against Mr Studdy was not fraud and the...

Court Disposition

Orrcon ordered to pay the first and second respondents' costs and the Commonwealth Bank of Australia's costs of the interlocutory application on a party and party basis; no order as to costs between Orrcon and Westpac Banking Corporation.

Orders

  • ["The applicant pay the first and second respondents' costs of its application for interlocutory relief dated 13 July 2007 to be taxed on a party and party basis in default of agreement." "The applicant pay the Commonwealth Bank of Australia's costs of its application for interlocutory relief dated 13 July 2007 to...