Karpik v Carnival plc (The Ruby Princess) (Stay Application Costs) [2021] FCA 1290

Karpik v Carnival plc (The Ruby Princess) (Stay Application Costs) [2021] FCA 1290

The respondents, as the substantially unsuccessful party on the amended interlocutory application, should pay the applicant's costs, but the applicant did not establish sufficient reason to depart from the usual rule in r 40.13 that interlocutory costs are not taxed until the proceeding is finished. The application was interlocutory, did not determine a discrete substantive issue or finally dispose of any rights, the proceeding was sufficiently advanced, the risks and burdens of immediate taxation outweighed the disadvantage of waiting, the significance of the costs was not relevant, and the applicant's funded class action was not dependent on immediate taxation of costs.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 October 2021
Procedural Posture
Funded Class Action; Costs of Interlocutory Application / Determination of Costs Following Dismissal of the Respondents' Amended Interlocutory Stay Application
Outcome
The Court ordered the respondents to pay the applicant's costs of the amended interlocutory application, but refused to order that those costs be taxed immediately.
Legal Topics
['interlocutory Application Costs' 'immediate Taxation of Costs' 'federal Court Rules 2011 (cth) R 40.13' 'stay Application Costs']
['civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['interlocutory Application Costs' 'immediate Taxation of Costs' 'federal Court Rules 2011 (cth) R 40.13' 'stay Application Costs']

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

Funded Class Action; Costs of Interlocutory Application / Determination of Costs Following Dismissal of the Respondents' Amended Interlocutory Stay Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the respondents should pay the applicant's costs of the amended interlocutory application filed 28 June 2021." 'Whether the costs of the interlocutory application should be taxed immediately under the note to r 40.13 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth).' 'Whether the nature of the relief sought, the asserted discrete nature of the issue, the significance of the costs, delay, and absence of prejudice to the respondents justified departure from the usual rule.']

Ratio Decidendi

The respondents, as the substantially unsuccessful party on the amended interlocutory application, should pay the applicant's costs, but the applicant did not establish sufficient reason to depart from the usual rule in r 40.13 that interlocutory costs are not taxed until the proceeding is finished. The application was interlocutory, did not determine a discrete substantive issue or finally dispose of any rights, the proceeding was sufficiently advanced, the risks and burdens of immediate taxation outweighed the disadvantage of waiting, the significance of the costs was not relevant, and the applicant's funded class action was not dependent on immediate taxation of costs.

Court Disposition

The Court ordered the respondents to pay the applicant's costs of the amended interlocutory application, but refused to order that those costs be taxed immediately.

Orders

  • ["The respondents pay the applicant's costs of the amended interlocutory application filed 28 June 2021."]