Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Rose v Essential Energy (No 2) [2020] FCA 347 File number: NSD 1958 of 2018
Judge: MARKOVIC J
Date of judgment: 17 March 2020
Catchwords: COSTS – application for preliminary discovery pursuant to r 7.23 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) – where prospective applicants were successful in the application which was contested by prospective respondent – prospective respondent ordered to pay prospective applicants' costs of the application – prospective applicants ordered to pay prospective respondent's reasonable costs of providing discovery
Legislation: Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) ss 20A, 43 Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) rr 7.23, 7.29(b)
Cases cited: Alstom Power Limited v Eraring Energy [2004] FCA 706 DSE (Holdings) Pty Limited v InterTAN Inc (2004) FCA 1251 ObjectiVision Pty Limited v Visionsearch Pty Limited (No 3) [2015] FCA 304 Pfizer Ireland Pharmaceuticals v Samsung Bioepis AU Pty Ltd (No 2) [2019] FCA 657 Proctor v Kalivis (No 3) [2010] FCA 1194 Steffen v ANZ Banking Group [2009] NSWSC 883
Date of hearing: Determined on the papers
Date of last submissions: 21 February 2020 (Prospective Applicants) 2 March 2020 (Prospective Respondent) 4 March 2020 (Prospective Applicants)
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