Telstra Corporation Limited v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (No 2) [2017] FCA 430

Telstra Corporation Limited v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (No 2) [2017] FCA 430

In the absence of undue or unreasonable duplication, and given the necessity and reasonableness of the access seekers’ participation, the applicant should pay the second to sixth respondents’ costs in full.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 April 2017
Procedural Posture
Application for Judicial Review / Costs Determination After Substantive Dismissal
Outcome
Applicant to pay the second to sixth respondents' costs of and incidental to the proceeding.
Legal Topics
['costs' 'joinder of Parties' 'judicial Review' 'economic Regulation']
['administrative Law' 'competition Law' 'commercial Law'] ['costs' 'joinder of Parties' 'judicial Review' 'economic Regulation']

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 Judicial Review / Costs Determination After Substantive Dismissal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Should the applicant pay all or a proportion of the costs incurred by the second to sixth respondents who joined as parties after commencement of the proceeding?']

Ratio Decidendi

In the absence of undue or unreasonable duplication, and given the necessity and reasonableness of the access seekers’ participation, the applicant should pay the second to sixth respondents’ costs in full.

Court Disposition

Applicant to pay the second to sixth respondents' costs of and incidental to the proceeding.

Orders

  • ["The applicant pay the second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth respondents' costs of and incidental to the Application for Judicial Review filed by the applicant on 5 November 2015."]