Hepburn v Beauty Services Holdings Pty Ltd (No 2) [2019] FCA 1200

Hepburn v Beauty Services Holdings Pty Ltd (No 2) [2019] FCA 1200

There is no merit in any of the applicant's proposed grounds of appeal; the primary judge did not err in finding the proceedings were instituted vexatiously and without reasonable cause, and the respondents are entitled to costs including indemnity costs.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 August 2019
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal / Dismissal of Application for Leave to Appeal
Outcome
application for leave to appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
['costs Application' 'vexatious Proceedings' 'serious Misconduct' 'abuse of Process' 'indemnity Costs Order' 'procedural Fairness']
['employment & Industrial Relations'] ['costs Application' 'vexatious Proceedings' 'serious Misconduct' 'abuse of Process' 'indemnity Costs Order' 'procedural Fairness']

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

Application for Leave to Appeal / Dismissal of Application for Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the applicant's conduct amounted to serious misconduct" 'Whether the proceedings were instituted vexatiously or without reasonable cause' 'Whether the conduct constituted abuse of process' 'Whether adequate reasons were provided for costs orders' 'Whether indemnity costs order was correctly made']

Ratio Decidendi

There is no merit in any of the applicant's proposed grounds of appeal; the primary judge did not err in finding the proceedings were instituted vexatiously and without reasonable cause, and the respondents are entitled to costs including indemnity costs.

Court Disposition

application for leave to appeal dismissed

Orders

  • ["The applicant's application for leave to appeal filed on 2 August 2018 is dismissed." "The applicant pay the respondents' costs of and incidental to the objection to competency, the application for an extension of time and the application for leave to appeal to be taxed failing agreement."]