Oswal v Apache Corporation (No 2) [2014] FCA 778

Oswal v Apache Corporation (No 2) [2014] FCA 778

There was no basis to set aside or vary the costs order because the applicant made no submissions on costs during the hearing despite the opportunity to do so, no considerations justifying exercise of the r 39.04 discretion arose, and the stay application had been wholly unsuccessful.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 July 2014
Procedural Posture
Practice and Procedure Costs Application / Application Pursuant to R 39.04 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (cth) to Vary an Unentered Costs Order, Determined on the Papers
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['variation of Costs Order' 'federal Court Rules 2011 (cth) R 39.04' 'finality of Litigation' 'submissions on Costs' 'stay of Proceedings']
['practice and Procedure' 'costs'] ['variation of Costs Order' 'federal Court Rules 2011 (cth) R 39.04' 'finality of Litigation' 'submissions on Costs' 'stay of Proceedings']

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

Practice and Procedure Costs Application / Application Pursuant to R 39.04 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (cth) to Vary an Unentered Costs Order, Determined on the Papers

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the costs order made on 24 June 2014 should be varied under r 39.04 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth).' "Whether the applicant's failure to make submissions on costs during the hearing justified refusal of the later application to vary the costs order."]

Ratio Decidendi

There was no basis to set aside or vary the costs order because the applicant made no submissions on costs during the hearing despite the opportunity to do so, no considerations justifying exercise of the r 39.04 discretion arose, and the stay application had been wholly unsuccessful.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The application pursuant to r 39.04 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), to vary the costs order made on 24 June 2014, be dismissed.' "The applicant pay the respondent's costs of the application."]