Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Boys v Australian Securities Commission [2001] FCA 1440
COSTS – review of taxation by a judge – role of judge upon review – relevance of State Supreme Court scale of costs for counsel fees – whether amounts claimed for counsel fees appear to be fair and reasonable according to the circumstances of the case and the seniority of counsel.
Legal Practitioners Act 1893 (WA) Schweppes' Ltd v Archer (1934) 34 SR (NSW) 170 referred to Stack v Commissioner of Patents [1999] FCA 148 referred to Brandy v Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (1995) 183 CLR 245 referred to Pacific Dunlop Ltd v Australian Rubber Gloves (unreported, Federal Court of Australia, Judgment No 562 of 1993) referred to Auspine Ltd v Australian Newsprint Mills Ltd (1999) 93 FCR referred to ALAN HAROLD BOYS & ORS v AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES COMMISSION,
ERNST & YOUNG (A FIRM), PHILLIPS FOX (A FIRM), PETER REYMOND QUIGLEY and KEVIN LEE CHRISTENSEN
WAG 123 of 1994
CARR J
12 OCTOBER 2001
PERTH
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY WAG 123 OF 1994
BETWEEN: ALAN HAROLD BOYS, RONALD GEORGE HOWARD, DESMOND FRANK CRAWLEY, ANTHONY HAYES DOUGLAS-BROWN, ANTHONY HOWARD LEIBOWITZ
Applicants
AND: AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES COMMISSION
First Respondent
ERNST & YOUNG (A FIRM)
Second Respondent
PHILLIPS FOX (A FIRM)
Third Respondent
PETER REYMOND QUIGLEY
Fourth Respondent
KEVIN LEE CHRISTENSEN
Fifth Respondent
JUDGE: CARR J
DATE OF ORDER: 12 OCTOBER 2001
WHERE MADE: PERTH
THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The order of the taxing officer made on 19 July 2001 allowing the costs of the second to fifth respondents in the sum of $102,140.95 be set aside. 2. The costs of the second to fifth respondents in these proceedings, [other than the costs of the motion filed on 20 July 2000 ("the First Review Motion") which were the subject of the taxing officer's order of 24 August 2001 and the costs of the motion filed on 17 August 2001 ("the Second Review Motion")] are allowed at $113,815.95. 3. The applicants pay the respondents' costs of the Second Review Motion. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
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