Paul Mitchell Systems (Australia) Pty Ltd v Paul Mitchell Systems (Australia) Pty Ltd & Anor [1995] FCA 793

Paul Mitchell Systems (Australia) Pty Ltd v Paul Mitchell Systems (Australia) Pty Ltd & Anor [1995] FCA 793

The primary Judge's order as to costs was not subject to any consequential variation by reason of the appeal orders. The Court had already concluded that the primary Judge did not err in the costs order, and the implied terms issue was peripheral and not easily severable as to time and effort so as to justify a greater reduction in the respondents' recoverable costs.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 October 1995
Procedural Posture
Appeal Concerning Costs / Consequential Orders Following Appeal Determined on 21 July 1995
Outcome
Order made by consent for payment out of Court of the security for appeal costs; no further variation of the primary Judge's costs order was made.
Legal Topics
['security for Costs of Appeal' 'payment Out of Court' 'consequential Orders' 'variation of Costs Order']
['costs' 'civil Procedure'] ['security for Costs of Appeal' 'payment Out of Court' 'consequential Orders' 'variation of Costs Order']

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

Appeal Concerning Costs / Consequential Orders Following Appeal Determined on 21 July 1995

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the $20,000 paid into Court by the appellant as security for the costs of the appeal should be paid out following the appeal costs order.' "Whether the primary Judge's order as to the costs of the action should be varied as a consequential order because the appeal reversed findings as to implied terms."]

Ratio Decidendi

The primary Judge's order as to costs was not subject to any consequential variation by reason of the appeal orders. The Court had already concluded that the primary Judge did not err in the costs order, and the implied terms issue was peripheral and not easily severable as to time and effort so as to justify a greater reduction in the respondents' recoverable costs.

Court Disposition

Order made by consent for payment out of Court of the security for appeal costs; no further variation of the primary Judge's costs order was made.

Orders

  • ["By consent, the sum of $20,000 paid into Court by the appellant as security for the costs of the appeal be paid out of Court: (a) to the first and second respondents' solicitors in satisfaction of the order for costs of the appeal after those costs have been taxed; and (b) any balance then remaining to the...