Federal Court of Australia
Federal Court of Australia
Harvard Nominees Pty Ltd v Dimension Agriculture Pty Ltd (in liq) [2023] FCAFC 140 Appeal from: Harvard Nominees Pty Ltd v Tiller (No 5) [2022] FCA 1510
File number: WAD 5 of 2023
Judgment of: COLVIN, STEWART AND FEUTRILL JJ
Date of judgment: 22 August 2023
Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - application for leave to appeal against costs order - consideration of whether leave to appeal is required for costs appeals - held leave required for costs appeals - leave to appeal refused PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - where applicant claims primary Judge erred in misapplying principles and misunderstanding evidence in relation to Sanderson orders - where applicant claims primary Judge should have made a Sanderson order - consideration of Sanderson order principles - where matters advanced were considered by Primary Judge - where no arguable error in Primary Judge's conclusions - where ground not sufficiently arguable - leave refused PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - where applicant claims primary Judge erred in application of indemnity principle - consideration of indemnity principle and Court's procedures - where any issues as to indemnity can be pursued at stage of assessment - leave refused
Legislation: Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 43
Cases cited: ALDI Foods Pty Limited as General Partner of ALDI Stores (A Limited Partnership) v Transport Workers' Union of Australia [2020] FCAFC 231; (2020) 282 FCR 174 Almeida v Universal Dye Works Pty Ltd (No 2) [2001] NSWCA 156 Arena Management Pty Ltd (Receiver & Manager Appointed) v Campbell Street Theatre Pty Ltd [2011] NSWCA 128; (2011) 80 NSWLR 652 Bankamerica Finance Ltd v Nock [1988] AC 1002 Caratti v Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police [2021] FCA 1067 CG Maloney Pty Ltd v Noon [2011] NSWCA 397 Coastal Hire Pty Ltd v Ewers [2009] WASCA 36 (S) Coffs Harbour City Council v Polglase [2020] NSWCA 265 Council of the City of Liverpool v Turano (No 2) [2009] NSWCA 176 Décor Corporation Pty Ltd v Dart Industries Inc (1991) 33 FCR 397 Frigger v Banning (No 13) [2023] FCA 923 Gould v Vaggelas (1984) 157 CLR 215 Hancock Prospecting Pty Ltd v Hancock [No 3] [2016] WASC 423 House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499 Les Laboratoires Servier v Apotex Pty Ltd [2016] FCAFC 27; (2016) 247 FCR 61 Marsh v Baxter [No 2] [2016] WASCA 51 McCracken & McCracken v Pippett [2000] VSCA 20 Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs v MB [2021] FCAFC 194 Northern Territory v Sangare [2019] HCA 25; (2019) 265 CLR 164 Noye v Robbins [2010] WASCA 83 Oshlack v Richmond River Council (1998) 193 CLR 72 Probiotec Limited v University of Melbourne [2008] FCAFC 5; (2008) 166 FCR 30 State of Victoria v Horvath (No 2) [2003] VSCA 24 Tresize v National Australia Bank Ltd [1999] FCA 28
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