Federal Court of Australia
Federal Court of Australia
Oliver Hume South East Queensland Pty Ltd v Barclay (No 2) [2021] FCA 1426 File number(s): QUD 438 of 2018
Judgment of: COLLIER J
Date of judgment: 18 November 2021
Catchwords: COSTS – where matter transferred from Supreme Court of Queensland to Federal Court of Australia – whether costs ought be paid on indemnity basis or party and party basis – relevant principles – whether indemnity costs properly awarded in cases of Anshun estoppel, abuse of process and res judicata – respective positions of the parties comprehensively argued – where costs should lie – where earlier proceedings in the Federal Court at first instance and in Full Court – costs of consolidation, re-opening and strike-out applications – costs of transfer application reserved by Supreme Court – whether costs of interlocutory proceedings be taxed forthwith, if not otherwise agreed – whether reserved costs should be taxed forthwith if not otherwise agreed – general principles concerning taxation of costs in interlocutory proceedings – relevance of notice by party that indemnity costs would be sought – burden of costs on individual litigants.
Legislation: Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 43(1) Federal Court Rules 2011 r 40.13
Cases cited: All Services Australia Pty Ltd v Telstra Corporation [2000] FCA 375 Baillieu Knight Frank (NSW) Pty Ltd v Ted Manny Real Estate Pty Ltd (1992) 30 NSWLR 359 Bosworth v Booth [2004] FCA 1623 CG Maloney Pty Ltd v Noon [2011] NSWCA 397 Clark v ING Life Limited [2007] FCA 1960 Clifton (Liquidator) v Kerry J Investment Pty Ltd trading as Clenergy (No 2) [2020] FCAFC 112 Coshott v Prentice (2014) 221 FCR 450; [2014] FCAFC 88 Dixon Projects Pty Ltd v Hallmark Homes Pty Ltd [2002] FCA 1206 Federal Treasury Enterprise (FKP) Sojuzplodoimport v Spirits International BV (No 5) [2018] FCA 19 Huntsman Chemical Company Australia Ltd v International Pools Australia Ltd (1995) 36 NSWLR 242 MIM General Insurance Ltd v D'Anglers' Paradise P/L [2002] QSC 224 Morad v El-Ashey (No 2) [2017] FCA 1612 Northern Territory v Sangare (2019) 265 CLR 164; [2019] HCA 25 Oshlack v Richmond River Council (1998) 193 CLR 72; [1998] HCA 11 Phillips v Herne [2015] QCA 236 Sacco trading as Globeline Automotive Service v FV Bilotto Nominees Pty Ltd [2011] FCA 1287
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