Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Tropoulos v Journey Lawyers Pty Ltd [2018] FCA 347 File number: QUD 33 of 2017
Judge: COLLIER J
Date of judgment: 15 March 2018
Catchwords: COSTS – whether applicant should pay second respondent's costs on an indemnity or party/party basis
Legislation: Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (Cth) ss 46PH(2), 46PO and 46PO(1) Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) ss 37M and 37N
Cases cited: Colgate-Palmolive Company v Cussons Pty Ltd [1993] FCA 801; (1993) 46 FCR 225 Morad v El-Ashey (No 2) [2017] FCA 1612
Date of hearing: 15 March 2018
Registry: Queensland
Division: General Division
National Practice Area: Administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights
Category: Catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 16
Counsel for the Applicant: Mr K Watson
Solicitor for the Applicant: Susan Moriarty & Associates
Counsel for the Respondents: Mr A Morris QC
Solicitor for the Respondents: Journey Family Lawyers
ORDERS QUD 33 of 2017
BETWEEN: STEVEN TROPOULOS Applicant
AND: JOURNEY LAWYERS PTY LTD ACN 125 790 605 First Respondent
BRYAN GALVIN Second Respondent
JUDGE: COLLIER J DATE OF ORDER: 15 MARCH 2018
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The application against the second respondent be dismissed. 2. The applicant pay the costs of the second respondent on an indemnity basis. Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
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