Federal Court of Australia
Federal Court of Australia
Stradford (a pseudonym) v Judge Vasta (No 2) [2023] FCA 1364 File number(s): ACD 57 of 2020
Judgment of: WIGNEY J
Date of judgment: 2 November 2023
Date of publication of reasons: 7 November 2023
Catchwords: COSTS – whether respondents should pay costs associated with the evidence of the applicant's expert witness – where applicant was successful in substantive proceedings – where evidence of applicant's expert witness was abandoned or otherwise would have been wholly rejected – held that the respondents pay the applicant's costs of the substantive proceeding excluding the costs referrable to the fees and disbursements paid to the expert witness – other costs otherwise associated with the applicant's expert witness to be paid by the respondents
Legislation: Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 43 Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) pt 40 Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld) Civil Liability Regulation 2014 (Qld)
Cases cited: Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Healthcare Australia Pty Ltd (No 2) [2020] FCA 724 Bell Lawyers Pty Ltd v Pentelow (2019) 269 CLR 333; [2019] HCA 29 Northern Territory v Sangare (2019) 265 CLR 164; [2019] HCA 25 Stradford (a pseudonym) v Judge Vasta [2023] FCA 1020
Division: General Division
Registry: Australian Capital Territory
National Practice Area: Administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights
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