Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Romero v Farstad Shipping (Indian Pacific) Pty Ltd (No 4) [2017] FCAFC 126 Appeal from: Romero v Farstad Shipping (Indian Pacific) Pty Ltd (No 3) [2016] FCA 1453 Romero v Farstad Shipping (Indian Pacific) Pty Ltd (No 4) [2017] FCA 120
File number: TAD 2 of 2017
Judges: ALLSOP CJ, RARES AND MCKERRACHER JJ
Date of judgment: 18 August 2017
Catchwords: COSTS – where appeal dismissed but partial variations made as to the costs order in favour of appellant – whether usual costs orders should apply – where appellant claims costs on indemnity basis – whether outcome of the appeal equivalent to or better than the terms of offer made by appellant – whether respondent acted unreasonably in not accepting offer – where costs component of the appeal not in existence at the time of offer – where extent of appellant's success in variation of costs orders a result of reasoning proposed by the Court Held: respondent awarded two-thirds of its costs on a party and party basis
Cases cited: Dukemaster Pty Ltd v Bluehive Pty Ltd [2003] FCAFC 1 NMFM Property Pty Ltd v Citibank Ltd (No 2) (2001) 109 FCR 77 Romero v Farstad Shipping (Indian Pacific) Pty Ltd [2014] FCA 439 Romero v Farstad Shipping (Indian Pacific) Pty Ltd (No 2) [2014] FCA 526 Romero v Farstad Shipping (Indian Pacific) Pty Ltd (2014) 231 FCR 403 Romero v Farstad Shipping (Indian Pacific) Pty Ltd (No 2) [2015] FCAFC 26 Romero v Farstad Shipping (Indian Pacific) Pty Ltd (No 3) [2017] FCAFC 102
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate