Federal Court of Australia
Federal Court of Australia
Monarch Advisory Group Pty Ltd v Puxty (No 3) [2021] FCA 1120 File number: NSD 951 of 2020
Judgment of: MARKOVIC J
Date of judgment: 16 September 2021
Catchwords: COSTS – application for costs of two interlocutory applications to be paid on an indemnity basis – where applicant successful in both applications – whether respondents' conduct caused loss of time to the Court and to other parties – whether respondents pressed applications in wilful disregard of known facts or clearly established law – whether respondents imprudently refused applicant's offer to compromise – application dismissed
Legislation: Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 43 Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) rr 39.05, 40.02, 40.13
Cases cited: Australian Securities and Investments Commission v ActiveSuper Pty Ltd (No 4) [2013] FCA 318 Clifton (Liquidator) v Kerry J Investment Pty Ltd t/as Clenergy No 2 (2020) 277 FCR 382 Fountain Selected Meats (Sales) Pty Ltd v International Produce Merchants Pty Ltd [1988] FCA 364; (1988) 81 ALR 397 Francis v GPI Graphics Ltd [2011] NSWSC 317 LFDB v Ms SM (No 2) [2018] FCA 2062 Luo v Zhai (No 6) [2016] FCA 805 Monarch Advisory Group Pty Ltd v Puxty [2021] FCA 341 Monarch Advisory Group Pty Ltd v Puxty (No 2) [2021] FCA 801
Division: General Division
Registry: New South Wales
National Practice Area: Commercial and Corporations
Sub-area: Commercial Contracts, Banking, Finance and Insurance
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