Federal Court of Australia
Federal Court of Australia
Australian Communications and Media Authority v Jones (No 5) [2023] FCA 1455 File number: QUD 129 of 2022
Judgment of: THOMAS J
Date of judgment: 23 November 2023
Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – costs – interlocutory application filed by the third respondent dismissed – not contested that costs order should be made – whether indemnity costs should be assessed on a lump sum basis – whether costs should be paid forthwith or at conclusion of matter
Legislation: Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth)
Cases cited: Australian Communications and Media Authority v Jones (No 3) [2023] FCA 511 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Colgate-Palmolive Pty Ltd (No 5) (2021) 151 ACSR 26; [2021] FCA 246 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (No 4) [2018] FCA 684 Federal Treasury Enterprise (FKP) Sojuzplodoimport v Spirits International B.V. (No 5) [2018] FCA 19 LFDB v MS S M (No 2) [2018] FCA 2062 Rafferty v Time 2000 West Pty Ltd (ACN 127 893 270) (No 3) (2009) 257 ALR 503; [2009] FCA 727 Raffin v Modern Assets Australia Pty Ltd [2023] FCA 1130 Watson v Kriticos (Costs Payable Forthwith) [2022] FCA 4
Division: General Division
Registry: Queensland
National Practice Area: Commercial and Corporations
Sub-area: Regulator and Consumer Protection
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