Hadid v Lenfest Communications Inc [2000] FCA 628

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Hadid v Lenfest Communications Inc [2000] FCA 628 COSTS – application by respondents for an order that an unsuccessful applicant pay their costs on an indemnity basis – whether and, if so, how an offer by one party to litigation to the other, in the Calderbank form, made after the commencement of the trial and not accepted, is relevant to questions of costs where the offeree does not achieve at trial a result at least as favourable as the offer COSTS – application by respondents for an order pursuant to FCR O 62 r 4(2)(c) that they be entitled, instead of to their taxed costs, to payment by the unsuccessful applicant of a specified gross sum – circumstances in which it will be appropriate for the Court to exercise its discretion to order the payment of a gross sum – method of calculation of the gross sum

Federal Court Rules, O 62 r 4(2)(c)

Donnelly v Edelsten (1994) 49 FCR 384, followed Donnelly v Edelsten (Northrop J, 27 October 1992, unreported), referred to Black v Lipovac (Full Court, 4 June 1998, unreported), followed Coshott v Learoyd [1999] FCA 276, referred to Multicon Engineering Pty Ltd v Federal Airports Corporation (1996) 138 ALR 425, not followed Re Wilcox; Ex parte Venture Industries Pty Ltd (No 2) (1996) 72 FCR 151 Beach Petroleum NL v Johnson (1995) 57 FCR 119, followed Sparnon v Apand Pty Ltd (von Doussa J, 4 March 1998, unreported), followed ALBERT HADID v LENFEST COMMUNICATIONS INC AND GERRY LENFEST AND BAIN CAPITAL MARKETS LIMITED AND WAYNE BURT AND AUSTRALIS MEDIA LIMITED AND RODNEY PRICE NG 36 OF 1995 LEHANE J 15 MAY 2000 SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NG 36 OF 1995

BETWEEN: ALBERT HADID

Applicant

AND: LENFEST COMMUNICATIONS INC

First Respondent