Axis Aviation Pty Ltd v Avtex Air Services Pty Ltd [1995] FCA 1166

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) ) NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY ) No NG3090 of 1995 ) GENERAL DIVISION ) BETWEEN: AXIS AVIATION PTY LIMITED Applicant AND: AVTEX AIR SERVICES PTY LIMITED First Respondent INTERNATIONAL PILOT TRAINING COURSE PTY LIMITED Second Respondent DIETER SIEWERT Third Respondent PAUL LANGE Fourth Respondent

CORAM: HILL J PLACE: SYDNEY DATED: 16 AUGUST 1995

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Axis Aviation Pty Ltd moves the Court for an order pursuant to O62 r11 of the Federal Court Rules that the Court review a decision of the Registrar made pursuant to O62 r46 of the Rules pursuant to which a certificate of taxation was ultimately issued in the sum of $91,808.64. Alternatively, there is sought an order pursuant to O35 r7(3) of the Federal Court Rules (colloquially referred to as the "slip rule") that an order made by me on 12 May 1992 be corrected so as to limit the liability of Axis for the costs of the applicants in these proceedings to the costs of the first day of hearing and so as to exclude liability for any costs incurred before or after that day.

Alternatively, if the motion be unsuccessful on the first two grounds, Axis asks the Court to set aside the certificate of taxation and extend the time in which Axis might then object to the estimate notified to it by the Registrar pursuant to O62 r46(3)(b) of the Federal Court Rules and notified on 4 August 1994. I am also asked to direct the Registrar in respect of that taxation to limit the taxation so far as it concerns Axis so that Axis would be liable only for the costs actually incurred by the applicants in respect of issues directly affecting Axis. There is also before me to day matter number NG 3090 of 1995 concerning the setting aside of a notice under the Corporations Law. That matter ultimately depends upon the effect of my costs order. However, it is unnecessary for me to enter into a hearing of that matter because it seems to me more appropriate that the questions and issues between the parties be dealt with on the motion to which I have already referred. The background to the problem is to be found in an order made by me on 12 May 1992 in the following terms: "The first, second, fifth, sixth and seventh respondents pay the applicants' costs of these proceedings, except as dealt with in previous orders as to costs but, in that the sixth respondent's liability for the applicants' costs be limited to the costs of one day of hearing."