Federal Court of Australia
Federal Court of Australia
Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Provide Nominees Pty Ltd (No 2) [2023] FCA 1308 File number(s): VID 712 of 2022
Judgment of: O'BRYAN J
Date of judgment: 30 October 2023
Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – costs – whether indemnity costs should be ordered following a Calderbank offer – whether indemnity costs should be ordered on account of unreasonable conduct of litigation
Legislation: Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 (Cth), Pt 3, ss 33, 70(2), 70(3) Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), s 43 Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), r 40.02(b)
Cases cited: Anchorage Capital Partners Pty Ltd v Acpa Pty Ltd (No 2) [2018] FCAFC 112 Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Provide Nominees Pty Ltd [2023] FCA 1137 Byrnes v Brisconnections Management Co Ltd (No 2) [2009] FCA 1432 Calderbank v Calderbank [1975] 3 All ER 333 CGU Insurance Ltd v Corrections Corporation of Australia Staff Superannuation Pty Ltd [2008] FCAFC 173 Clifton v Kerry J Investment Pty Ltd (No 2) (2020) 277 FCR 382 Colgate-Palmolive Company v Cussons Pty Ltd (1993) 46 FCR 225 Hazeldene's Chicken Farm Pty Ltd v Victorian Workcover Authority (No 2) (2005) 13 VR 435 Latoudis v Casey (1990) 170 CLR 534 Northern Territory v Sangare (2019) 265 CLR 164 Paciocco v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited (No 2) (2017) 253 FCR 403 Playcorp Group of Companies Pty Ltd v Bodum A/S (No 2) [2010] FCA 455
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