Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Notaras v Barcelona Pty Limited (No 2) [2019] FCA 617 Appeal from: Irene Notaras v Barcelona Pty Limited [2018] ATMO 12
File number: NSD 215 of 2018
Judge: ROBERTSON J
Date of judgment: 3 May 2019
Catchwords: COSTS – where, after judgment, the successful respondent seeks to substitute for the costs order as made a different costs order, not earlier foreshadowed to the Court, whereby the applicant pay the respondent's costs on an indemnity basis from a specified date, being the date of non-acceptance by the applicant of one or other of two offers of compromise – whether the Court has power under the slip rule to vary its earlier costs order and, if so, whether that order should be varied – where parties agree that the applicant pay the respondent's costs in a lump sum amount – on what basis that lump sum should be assessed and what that lump sum amount should be PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – whether under the slip rule, r 39.05(h) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), the Court has power to amend its order for costs to be paid on a party-party basis to an order for costs on an indemnity basis which, through inadvertence of the respondent's legal representatives, was not sought or made at the hearing – if the Court has that power, whether as a matter of discretion the Court should so amend its order
Legislation: Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) rr 25.06, 25.14(2), 39.05(h), 40.02
Cases cited: Apache Northwest Pty Ltd v Newcrest Mining Limited (No 2) [2009] FCAFC 58 Commonwealth v McCormack [1984] HCA 57; 155 CLR 273 Coppins v Helmers & Brambles Constructions Pty Ltd [1969] 2 NSWR 279 Fritz v Hobson (1880) 14 Ch D 542 Grygiel v Baine (No 2) [2005] NSWCA 434 L Shaddock & Associates Pty Ltd v Parramatta City Council (No 2) [1982] HCA 59; 151 CLR 590 Les Laboratoires Servier v Apotex Pty Ltd [2016] FCAFC 27; 247 FCR 61 Raybos Australia Pty Ltd v Tectran Corporation Pty Ltd [1988] HCA 2; 77 ALR 190 Rowe v Delfs [1966] WAR 49 Sino Dragon Trading Ltd v Noble Resources International Pte Ltd (No 2) [2015] FCA 1046; 339 ALR 446 Westpac Banking Corporation v Wittenberg (No 3) [2016] FCAFC 51
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