Sheikholeslami v Brungs No 2 [2007] FCA 145

The applicant's motion was unnecessary because her counsel could have asked Gyles J for a stay of proceedings concerning costs pending the leave decision; in all the circumstances the applicant should pay the respondents' costs of the motion heard on 8 December 2006, with no order as to the costs of 9 February 2007.

Jurisdiction: Australia
Judgment Date: 09 February 2007
Procedural Posture: Notice of Motion in Federal Court Proceeding / Costs of Notice of Motion Following Dismissal of Application for Leave to Appeal
Outcome: Applicant ordered to pay the respondents' costs of the Notice of Motion on 8 December 2006; no order as to costs of 9 February 2007.
Legal Topics: ['costs of Motion' 'stay of Costs Order' 'taxation of Costs' 'leave to Appeal' 'summary Dismissal']

['civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['costs of Motion' 'stay of Costs Order' 'taxation of Costs' 'leave to Appeal' 'summary Dismissal']

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

Procedural Posture

Notice of Motion in Federal Court Proceeding / Costs of Notice of Motion Following Dismissal of Application for Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

1 ["Who should bear the costs of the applicant's notice of motion heard on 8 December 2006." "Whether the applicant's motion seeking relief in relation to the respondents' bill of costs was necessary."]

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Applicant ordered to pay the respondents' costs of the Notice of Motion on 8 December 2006; no order as to costs of 9 February 2007.

Orders

["The Applicant pay the Respondents' costs of the Notice of Motion on 8 December 2006 and there be no order as to the costs of 9 February 2007."]