Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Hughes trading as Beesley and Hughes Lawyers v Hill (No 2) [2021] FCAFC 1 Appeal from: Hill v Hughes [2019] FCCA 1267; 287 IR 86
File number: QUD 393 of 2019
Judgment of: COLLIER, REEVES AND PERRAM JJ
Date of judgment: 15 January 2021
Catchwords: COSTS – application for indemnity costs – where meritless appeal found to have been pursued for ulterior purpose of harassing the Respondent – whether costs order should be reduced by any amount recovered from Appellant's lawyers PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – where Appellant had given undertaking not to encumber or otherwise deal with property – whether the Court has power to extend undertaking
Legislation: Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) ss 37M, 37N, 52 Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) r 39.06
Cases cited: Colgate Palmolive v Cussons (1993) 46 FCR 225 Hughes trading as Beesley and Hughes Lawyers v Hill [2019] FCA 1234 Hughes trading as Beesley and Hughes Lawyers v Hill [2020] FCAFC 126; 382 ALR 231 Melbourne City Investments Pty Ltd v Treasury Wine Estates Limited (No 2) [2017] FCAFC 116
Division: General Division
Registry: New South Wales
National Practice Area: Administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights
Number of paragraphs: 14
Date of last submission: 21 September 2020 (Appellant) 6 August 2020 (Respondent)
Date of hearing: Determined on the papers
Counsel for the Appellant: The Appellant appeared in person
Counsel for the Respondent: Ms K Nomchong SC with Ms S McCarthy
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