Morey v Transurban City Link Ltd & Anor [1997] FCA 47

Morey v Transurban City Link Ltd & Anor [1997] FCA 47

The motions to order costs against the PTUA failed because there was insufficient evidence the PTUA, as a corporate entity, authorised or directed the litigation; Mr Mees acted individually, not as an agent of the PTUA. The applicant was ordered to pay the respondents' costs because, having brought the action in his own right and failed, the normal rule that costs follow the event applies and public interest arguments did not justify departure from this rule.

Parties
Applicant: Philip James Morey; First Respondent: Transurban City Link Limited; Second Respondent: City Link Management Limited; Non Party: Public Transport Users Association
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 February 1997
Procedural Posture
Costs Motion (post Dismissal) / Costs Determination After Dismissal of Application
Outcome
Applicant to pay respondents' costs; motions for costs against the PTUA refused with costs
Legal Topics
Costs Against Non Party, Security for Costs, Public Interest Litigation, Trade Practices Act 1974
Costs Trade Practices Costs Against Non Party Security for Costs Public Interest Litigation Trade Practices Act 1974

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Philip James Morey

Applicant

Transurban City Link Limited

First Respondent

City Link Management Limited

Second Respondent

Public Transport Users Association

Non Party

Procedural Posture

Costs Motion (post Dismissal) / Costs Determination After Dismissal of Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the PTUA as a non-party should be ordered to pay respondents' costs
  2. 2 Whether the applicant should be ordered to pay respondents' costs
  3. 3 Whether the proceeding was pursued in the public interest so as to affect the usual costs order

Ratio Decidendi

The motions to order costs against the PTUA failed because there was insufficient evidence the PTUA, as a corporate entity, authorised or directed the litigation; Mr Mees acted individually, not as an agent of the PTUA. The applicant was ordered to pay the respondents' costs because, having brought the action in his own right and failed, the normal rule that costs follow the event applies and public interest arguments did not justify departure from this rule.

Court Disposition

Applicant to pay respondents' costs; motions for costs against the PTUA refused with costs

Orders

  • The applicant pay the respondents' costs of the application, including costs of and incidental to the making of submissions that the applicant pay the costs of the proceeding.
  • The respondents' motions, notices of which are dated 30 May and 17 June 1996 respectively, be refused with costs.