Qualify Me Pty Ltd v Get Qualified Australia Pty Ltd (No 3) [2016] FCA 460

Qualify Me Pty Ltd v Get Qualified Australia Pty Ltd (No 3) [2016] FCA 460

Although the second further amended statement of claim included amendments beyond the leave granted on 4 March 2016 and new claims, the delay and lack of explanation did not constitute a special circumstance or unusual feature justifying indemnity costs. The case was distinguishable from Tamaya because the amendments were made before close of pleadings and well before any imminent hearing or extensive preparation on a differently formulated claim. For the same reasons previously given in Qualify Me (No 2), the costs were not ordered payable forthwith.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 May 2016
Procedural Posture
Costs Application in Federal Court Proceeding / Heard on the Papers on the Basis of Written Submissions Concerning Costs Thrown Away by Amendments in the Second Further Amended Statement of Claim
Outcome
The respondents obtained an order for costs thrown away by reason of the amendments beyond those permitted, but not on an indemnity basis and not payable forthwith.
Legal Topics
['indemnity Costs' 'costs Thrown Away' 'amendment of Pleadings' 'costs Payable Forthwith' 'party and Party Costs']
['civil Procedure' 'costs' 'commercial and Corporations' 'regulator and Consumer Protection'] ['indemnity Costs' 'costs Thrown Away' 'amendment of Pleadings' 'costs Payable Forthwith' 'party and Party 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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Costs Application in Federal Court Proceeding / Heard on the Papers on the Basis of Written Submissions Concerning Costs Thrown Away by Amendments in the Second Further Amended Statement of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether costs thrown away by reason of amendments in the second further amended statement of claim beyond the leave granted on 4 March 2016 should be paid on an indemnity basis.' 'Whether those costs should be payable forthwith.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although the second further amended statement of claim included amendments beyond the leave granted on 4 March 2016 and new claims, the delay and lack of explanation did not constitute a special circumstance or unusual feature justifying indemnity costs. The case was distinguishable from Tamaya because the amendments were made before close of pleadings and well before any imminent hearing or extensive preparation on a differently formulated claim. For the same reasons previously given in Qualify Me (No 2), the costs were not ordered payable forthwith.

Court Disposition

The respondents obtained an order for costs thrown away by reason of the amendments beyond those permitted, but not on an indemnity basis and not payable forthwith.

Orders

  • ["The applicant to pay the respondents' costs thrown away by reason of the amendments made by the second further amended statement of claim, beyond the amendments made to paragraphs 3A to 17 of the further amended statement of claim, as agreed or taxed."]