Richmond v Ora Gold Limited [2020] FCA 70

Richmond v Ora Gold Limited [2020] FCA 70

An applicant who substantially amends their pleading, except where primarily caused by the other party, should ordinarily pay the costs of and incidental to the application for leave to amend and the costs thrown away, but such costs are not to be assessed and paid forthwith absent special circumstances such as unreasonable conduct.

Parties
Applicant: William Robert Richmond; First Respondent: Ora Gold Limited (ACN 085 782 994); Second Respondent: Sandfire Resources Limited (ACN 105 154 185)
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 February 2020
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application for Costs Following Amendment of Pleadings / Post Leave to Amend; Application for Costs Orders Following Amendments
Outcome
Orders made for applicant to pay costs of and incidental to application for leave to amend and costs thrown away; each party to bear own costs of hearing on 31 January 2020; no order for costs to be paid forthwith.
Legal Topics
Costs of Amendment, Pleading Practice, Discretion in Awarding Costs, Interlocutory Costs, Case Management
Civil Procedure Costs Costs of Amendment Pleading Practice Discretion in Awarding Costs Interlocutory Costs Case Management

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 4 Authorities cited 32 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

William Robert Richmond

Applicant

Ora Gold Limited (ACN 085 782 994)

First Respondent

Sandfire Resources Limited (ACN 105 154 185)

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application for Costs Following Amendment of Pleadings / Post Leave to Amend; Application for Costs Orders Following Amendments

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the appropriate order as to costs when a party substantially amends its pleading?
  2. 2 Should costs of and incidental to the application for leave to amend and costs thrown away by reason of amendment be paid forthwith?
  3. 3 Should costs be reserved until the outcome of the trial due to the nature of the allegations (including deceit and concealment)?

Ratio Decidendi

An applicant who substantially amends their pleading, except where primarily caused by the other party, should ordinarily pay the costs of and incidental to the application for leave to amend and the costs thrown away, but such costs are not to be assessed and paid forthwith absent special circumstances such as unreasonable conduct.

Court Disposition

Orders made for applicant to pay costs of and incidental to application for leave to amend and costs thrown away; each party to bear own costs of hearing on 31 January 2020; no order for costs to be paid forthwith.

Orders

  • Subject to order 3, the applicant do pay the costs of and incidental to the applicant's application for leave to amend in terms of the further amended statement of claim filed 24 September 2019.
  • The applicant pay the costs thrown away by reason of the amendments to the amended statement of claim dated 12 September 2018.