Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Ehrke v Australian Building and Construction Commissioner (No 2) [2020] FCA 754 File number: QUD 879 of 2018
Judge: RANGIAH J
Date of judgment: 4 June 2020
Catchwords: COSTS – whether applicant should pay first respondents' costs of proceeding or whether there should be no order as to costs – whether proceeding in public interest – whether appropriate to apportion costs according to mixed success on issues in contention – where applicant successful on subsidiary issue only – costs awarded in favour of first respondent
Legislation: Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Act 2016 (Cth) s 61 Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 43(1)
Cases cited: Cretazzo v Lombardi (1975) 13 SASR 4 Dodds Family Investments Pty Ltd (formerly Solar Tint Pty Ltd) v Lane Industries Pty Ltd (1993) 26 IPR 261 Ehrke v Australian Building and Construction Commissioner [2020] FCA 267 Les Laboratoires Servier v Apotex Pty Ltd (2016) 247 FCR 61 Oshlack v Richmond River Council (1998) 193 CLR 72
Date of hearing: Determined on the papers
Date of last submissions: 20 March 2020 (Applicant) 2 April 2020 (First Respondent)
Registry: Queensland
Division: Fair Work Division
National Practice Area: Administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights
Category: Catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 12
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