Harrison v Lidoform [1999] FCA 137

Harrison v Lidoform [1999] FCA 137

The applicant needed to come to Court to obtain some interlocutory relief, but substantially all of the hearing time was spent on broader relief on which the applicant failed, justifying an order that the applicant pay one half of the respondents' costs of that application. The applicant failed on the substantial issue in the strike out application, namely whether the amended statement of claim was defective for pleading a case peculiar to Mr Harrison rather than the represented class, and no sufficient reason was shown to depart from the ordinary costs position, so the applicant was ordered to pay the respondents' costs of that application.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 February 1999
Procedural Posture
Costs Determination in Federal Court Proceedings / Hearing on Costs After Applications for Interlocutory Relief and to Strike Out the Statement of Claim and Amended Statement of Claim
Outcome
Costs ordered against the applicant in part for the interlocutory relief application and in full for the strike out application, with corresponding costs orders for the 17 February 1999 hearing.
Legal Topics
['costs' 'interlocutory Relief' 'strike Out Application' 'representative Proceedings']
['civil Procedure'] ['costs' 'interlocutory Relief' 'strike Out Application' 'representative Proceedings']

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 Determination in Federal Court Proceedings / Hearing on Costs After Applications for Interlocutory Relief and to Strike Out the Statement of Claim and Amended Statement of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the applicant should pay all or part of the respondents' costs of the application for interlocutory relief heard on 4 and 5 November 1998." "Whether the applicant should pay the respondents' costs of the application to strike out the statement of claim and amended statement of claim." 'How the costs of the hearing on 17 February 1999 should be allocated.']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant needed to come to Court to obtain some interlocutory relief, but substantially all of the hearing time was spent on broader relief on which the applicant failed, justifying an order that the applicant pay one half of the respondents' costs of that application. The applicant failed on the substantial issue in the strike out application, namely whether the amended statement of claim was defective for pleading a case peculiar to Mr Harrison rather than the represented class, and no sufficient reason was shown to depart from the ordinary costs position, so the applicant was ordered to pay the respondents' costs of that application.

Court Disposition

Costs ordered against the applicant in part for the interlocutory relief application and in full for the strike out application, with corresponding costs orders for the 17 February 1999 hearing.

Orders

  • ["The applicant pay one half of the respondents' costs of the application for interlocutory relief heard on 4 and 5 November 1998." "The applicant pay the respondents' costs of the application to strike out the statement of claim and amended statement of claim heard on 4 and 5 November 1998." "The applicant pay the...