Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
CMA Corporation Limited v McSorley (No 2) [2012] FCA 732 Citation: CMA Corporation Limited v McSorley (No 2) [2012] FCA 732
Parties: CMA CORPORATION LIMITED and CMA RECYCLING PTY LTD v IAN MCSORLEY
File number: NSD 233 of 2011
Judge: ROBERTSON J
Date of judgment: 10 July 2012
Catchwords: COSTS – lump sum costs – plaintiffs requested lump sum costs instead of any taxed costs – whether appropriate to make order – order not opposed by defendant
Legislation: Federal Court Rules 2011 r 40.02
Cases cited: Beach Petroleum v Johnson (No 2)(1995) 57 FCR 119 followed Bitek Pty Ltd v IConnect Pty Ltd [2012] FCA 506 followed Dunstan v Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (No 3) [2006] FCA 916 referred to
Date of hearing: 10 July 2012
Place: Sydney
Division: GENERAL DIVISION
Category: Catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 12
Counsel for the Plaintiffs: Mr JC Giles
Solicitor for the Plaintiffs: Minter Ellison Lawyers
Counsel for the Defendant: The Defendant did not appear
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISION NSD 233 of 2011
BETWEEN: CMA CORPORATION LIMITED
First Plaintiff
CMA RECYCLING PTY LTD
Second Plaintiff
AND: IAN MCSORLEY
Defendant
JUDGE: ROBERTSON J DATE OF ORDER: 10 JULY 2012 WHERE MADE: SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The plaintiffs' costs be awarded in a lump sum of $123,306.77, instead of any taxed costs. Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
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