Queanbeyan City Council v ACTEW Corporation Limited (No 2) [2009] FCA 1367

Queanbeyan City Council v ACTEW Corporation Limited (No 2) [2009] FCA 1367

Both respondents were entitled to their own costs as their interests, while overlapping, were not identical, and QCC should pay 20 per cent of each respondent's costs due to the proportion of issues on which it succeeded. On interest, ACTEW was not entitled to interest at the contractually agreed rate post-1 July 2008, as it had not pleaded for it, and interest should be awarded under the Federal Court Rules for the whole period.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 November 2009
Procedural Posture
General Division / Post Judgment (costs and Interest Determination)
Outcome
Costs and interest orders issued
Legal Topics
['costs' 'interest' 'water Abstraction Charge']

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

General Division / Post Judgment (costs and Interest Determination)

  1. 1 ['Whether each respondent is separately entitled to costs' 'What proportion of costs the applicant should pay' 'The appropriate rate of interest on the judgment sum']

Ratio Decidendi

Both respondents were entitled to their own costs as their interests, while overlapping, were not identical, and QCC should pay 20 per cent of each respondent's costs due to the proportion of issues on which it succeeded. On interest, ACTEW was not entitled to interest at the contractually agreed rate post-1 July 2008, as it had not pleaded for it, and interest should be awarded under the Federal Court Rules for the whole period.

Court Disposition

Costs and interest orders issued

Orders

  • ['The applicant pay 20 per cent of the costs of each of the respondents, such costs to be taxed if not agreed.' 'Interest be paid on amounts outstanding from time to time, which made up the sum of $3,979,419.02, at the rate specified by O 35, r 7A(a) of the Federal Court Rules.']