Leach v Burston (No 2) [2022] FCA 178

Leach v Burston (No 2) [2022] FCA 178

Given the applicant was largely successful in defending the respondent's interlocutory application, but a principal issue raised was not determined and the respondent had limited success on one claim, and consistent with established principles and court practice, the applicant's costs of and incidental to the hearing of the interlocutory application should be costs in the cause. No apportionment of costs is warranted, and no further order is made as to the separate costs application.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 March 2022
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Costs Determination After Interlocutory Application
Outcome
Applicant's costs of and incidental to the hearing of the interlocutory application are to be costs in the cause; no order for costs of the costs application.
Legal Topics
['costs' 'interlocutory Applications' 'discretionary Powers of Court']
['civil Procedure'] ['costs' 'interlocutory Applications' 'discretionary Powers of Court']

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

Interlocutory Application / Costs Determination After Interlocutory Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicant or respondent should bear the costs of and incidental to the hearing of the interlocutory application for strike out and/or summary dismissal' 'Whether apportionment of costs is appropriate']

Ratio Decidendi

Given the applicant was largely successful in defending the respondent's interlocutory application, but a principal issue raised was not determined and the respondent had limited success on one claim, and consistent with established principles and court practice, the applicant's costs of and incidental to the hearing of the interlocutory application should be costs in the cause. No apportionment of costs is warranted, and no further order is made as to the separate costs application.

Court Disposition

Applicant's costs of and incidental to the hearing of the interlocutory application are to be costs in the cause; no order for costs of the costs application.

Orders

  • ["The applicant's costs of and incidental to the hearing of the interlocutory application filed by the respondent on 14 September 2021 are costs in the cause." 'No order as to costs incurred by the parties in connection with their respective applications for costs.']