Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Mijac Investments Pty Ltd v Graham (No 2) [2014] FCA 417 Citation: Mijac Investments Pty Ltd v Graham (No 2) [2014] FCA 417
Parties: MIJAC INVESTMENTS PTY LTD (ACN 089 820 280) v WILLIAM GRAHAM, COSMICK PTY LTD and MELBOURNE GRAVITY PTY LTD (ACN 490 584 339)
File number: VID 77 of 2014
Judge: JESSUP J
Date of judgment: 2 May 2014
Catchwords: COSTS – whether the applicant should pay the respondents' costs on an indemnity basis – application was self-evidently hopeless and misconceived – whether applicant's solicitor should pay respondents' costs – application was not filed over hand of the solicitor – solicitor should not be liable to pay costs of the application – applicant to pay respondents' costs on indemnity basis
Cases cited: Mijac Investments Pty Ltd v Graham [2014] FCA 366
Date of hearing: Heard on the papers
Date of last submissions: 17 April 2014
Place: Melbourne
Division: GENERAL DIVISION
Category: Catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 5
Counsel for the Applicant: The applicant did not file any submissions
Counsel for the Respondents: C G K Madder
Solicitor for the Respondents: B2B Lawyers
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISION VID 77 of 2014
BETWEEN: MIJAC INVESTMENTS PTY LTD (ACN 089 820 280)
Applicant
AND: WILLIAM GRAHAM
First Respondent
COSMICK PTY LTD
Second Respondent
MELBOURNE GRAVITY PTY LTD (ACN 490 584 339)
Third Respondent
JUDGE: JESSUP J DATE OF ORDER: 2 MAY 2014 WHERE MADE: MELBOURNE
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