Pritchard, Susan Ann v Racecage Pty Ltd & Ors [1996] FCA 194

Pritchard, Susan Ann v Racecage Pty Ltd & Ors [1996] FCA 194

There are no special circumstances or factors, such as abuse of process or bad faith, to justify an order of costs on an indemnity basis against the applicant. The application for indemnity costs is dismissed because the legal and factual circumstances do not warrant departing from the usual party and party costs order.

Parties
Applicant: Susan Ann Pritchard; First Respondent: Racecage Pty Ltd (ACN 058 876 298); Second Respondent: John Michael Large; Second Respondent: David Howard Tait; Second Respondent: Rob Coppins; Second Respondent: Steven Charles Chopping; Second Respondent: Terrence York; Second Respondent: Peter Bready; Second Respondent: Colin Osborne; Second Respondent: Sir Guy Boileau; Second Respondent: Bruce Malcolm Keys; Second Respondent: Brian Robert Payne; Second Respondent: Timothy Theodore Schenken; Second Respondent: Edgar Roy Ritchie
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 March 1996
Procedural Posture
Civil / Post Judgment, Application for Indemnity Costs
Outcome
Application for indemnity costs dismissed. Costs ordered as outlined in orders.
Legal Topics
Indemnity Costs, Order 23 Offers of Compromise, Statutory Limitation of Damages
Costs Civil Procedure Indemnity Costs Order 23 Offers of Compromise Statutory Limitation of Damages

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 2 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Susan Ann Pritchard

Applicant

Racecage Pty Ltd (ACN 058 876 298)

First Respondent

John Michael Large

Second Respondent

David Howard Tait

Second Respondent

Rob Coppins

Second Respondent

Steven Charles Chopping

Second Respondent

Terrence York

Second Respondent

Peter Bready

Second Respondent

Colin Osborne

Second Respondent

Sir Guy Boileau

Second Respondent

Bruce Malcolm Keys

Second Respondent

Brian Robert Payne

Second Respondent

Timothy Theodore Schenken

Second Respondent

Edgar Roy Ritchie

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil / Post Judgment, Application for Indemnity Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether respondents should be awarded costs on an indemnity basis against the applicant.

Ratio Decidendi

There are no special circumstances or factors, such as abuse of process or bad faith, to justify an order of costs on an indemnity basis against the applicant. The application for indemnity costs is dismissed because the legal and factual circumstances do not warrant departing from the usual party and party costs order.

Court Disposition

Application for indemnity costs dismissed. Costs ordered as outlined in orders.

Orders

  • Paragraphs 23-28 and parts of paragraphs 29-31 of the statement of claim struck out.
  • Further specified paragraphs of the statement of claim struck out.