Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Martin v Norton Rose Fulbright Australia (No 2) [2020] FCAFC 42 File number: SAD 40 of 2019
Judges: BESANKO, FLICK AND ABRAHAM JJ
Date of judgment: 17 March 2020
Catchwords: COSTS – whether lump sum costs order should be made – lump sum costs order to be assessed by the Registrar
Legislation: Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) ss 35A, 43 Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) rr 3.01, 40.02, Item 221 to Schedule 2
Cases cited: Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Daniels Corporation Pty Ltd [2001] FCA 936 Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy [2000] HCA 63; (2000) 205 CLR 337 In Re JRL; Ex parte CJL [1986] HCA 39; (1986) 161 CLR 342 Johnson v Johnson [2000] HCA 48; (2000) 201 CLR 488 Oshlack v Richmond River Council [1998] HCA 11; (1998) 193 CLR 72 Paciocco v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited (No 2) [2017] FCAFC 146; (2017) 253 FCR 403 Ruddock v Vadarlis (No 2) [2001] FCA 1865; (2001) 115 FCR 229 Thomas v Commissioner of Taxation (No 2) [2017] FCAFC 144 Tristar Steering and Suspension Australia Ltd v Industrial Relations Commission of NSW (No 2) [2007] FCAFC 95; (2007) 159 FCR 274 Victoria v Sportsbet Pty Ltd (No 2) [2012] FCAFC 174
Date of hearing: Decided on the papers
Date of last submissions: 19 February 2020
Registry: South Australia
Division: Fair Work Division
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