Federal Court of Australia
Federal Court of Australia
Dyer v Chrysanthou (No 3) (Costs) [2021] FCA 642 File number: NSD 426 of 2021
Judgment of: THAWLEY J
Date of judgment: 11 June 2021
Catchwords: COSTS – where applicant successful in substantive proceedings – whether first respondent should not be ordered to pay costs – where the first respondent filed a submitting notice – whether the second respondent should be ordered to pay 70% of the applicant's costs – where the second respondent contended the applicant filed evidence late, which was analogous to an amendment – first and second respondents ordered to pay the applicant's costs
Legislation: Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 43 Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) s 135
Cases cited: Australian Securities and Investment Commission v Westpac Securities Administration Ltd (2019) 272 FCR 170 Dyer v Chrysanthou [2021] FCA 578 Dyer v Chrysanthou (No 2) (Injunction) [2021] FCA 641 Gray v Richards (No 2) (2014) 315 ALR 1 Kisimul Holdings Pty Ltd v Clear Position Pty Ltd (No 2) (2014) 86 NSWLR 645 Lo v Australian Community Pharmacy Authority [2013] FCA 639 Ruddock v Vadarlis (No 2) (2001) 115 FCR 229
Division: General Division
Registry: New South Wales
National Practice Area: Other Federal Jurisdiction
Number of paragraphs: 9
Date of last submission: 3 June 2021
Date of hearing: Determined on the papers
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