Wodrow v Commonwealth of Australia [2003] FCA 403

Wodrow v Commonwealth of Australia [2003] FCA 403

The respondent's application for taxation of costs was brought within the applicable 12-year limitation period under s 14 of the Limitation Act 1985 (ACT). Mere delay within that period is not a bar to enforcement. Relief under Federal Court Rules O 62 r 17 and r 22 is not available as the bill of costs was filed. No representations or conduct by the respondent or its agents gave rise to estoppel or legitimate expectation that the costs order would not be enforced. The Commonwealth's model litigant obligations do not prevent it from enforcing a valid costs order. Accordingly, the applicant's notice of motion is dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 May 2003
Procedural Posture
Motion / Decision on Notice of Motion to Dismiss or Limit Enforcement of Costs Order
Outcome
Notice of motion dismissed.
Legal Topics
['costs' 'enforcement of Costs Order' 'limitation Periods' 'discretion of the Court' 'model Litigant Policy']
['practice and Procedure'] ['costs' 'enforcement of Costs Order' 'limitation Periods' 'discretion of the Court' 'model Litigant Policy']

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

Motion / Decision on Notice of Motion to Dismiss or Limit Enforcement of Costs Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether delay in enforcing a costs order justifies refusal or limitation of enforcement.' 'Whether the Commonwealth is out of time to enforce the costs order due to a limitation period.' 'Whether the applicant is entitled to relief under Federal Court Rules O 62 r 17 or r 22.' "Whether the respondent's conduct, including delay, induces any legitimate expectation or estoppel." "Effect of Commonwealth's model litigant obligations on enforcement of costs."]

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent's application for taxation of costs was brought within the applicable 12-year limitation period under s 14 of the Limitation Act 1985 (ACT). Mere delay within that period is not a bar to enforcement. Relief under Federal Court Rules O 62 r 17 and r 22 is not available as the bill of costs was filed. No representations or conduct by the respondent or its agents gave rise to estoppel or legitimate expectation that the costs order would not be enforced. The Commonwealth's model litigant obligations do not prevent it from enforcing a valid costs order. Accordingly, the applicant's notice of motion is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Notice of motion dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The notice of motion filed on 2 August 2001 be dismissed.' 'There be no order as to costs of the notice of motion.']