Hamilton v Meta Platforms, Inc. (Costs) [2023] FCA 1496

Federal Court of Australia

Hamilton v Meta Platforms, Inc. (Costs) [2023] FCA 1496 File number(s): NSD 899 of 2020

Judgment of: CHEESEMAN J

Date of judgment: 29 November 2023

Catchwords: COSTS – where proceeding permanently stayed – where the applicant sought an order under s 82(4) of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) (CCA) (NACO) – where the application for the NACO has not been determined – where the application for a permanent stay determined prior to the hearing of the NACO application – whether s 82 of the CCA displaces the general presumption that costs follow the event – whether procedural course resulted in unfairness that justifies a departure from the general presumption – Held: Applicant to pay respondents' costs.

Legislation: Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) ss 82(3), 82(4), 82(5), 82(6) Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) ss 37M, 37N(4), 43(1), 43(1A), 43(2) Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) rr 10.42, 10.43(2) and 10.44(1)

Cases cited: Adam P Brown Male Fashions Pty Ltd v Phillip Morris Inc [1981] HCA 39; 148 CLR 170 Bhagat v Royal and Sun Alliance Life Assurance Australia Ltd [2000] NSWSC 159 Décor Corporation Pty Ltd v Dart Industries Inc [1991] FCA544; 33 FCR 397 El-Debel v Micheletto (Trustee) (No 2) [2021] FCAFC 146 Fisse v Secretary, Department of the Treasury & Anor (No 2) [2008] FCAFC 200; 253 ALR 52 Hamilton v Meta Platforms, Inc (Service out of Jurisdiction) [2022] FCA 681 Hamilton v Meta Platforms, Inc. [2023] FCA 1148 LFDB v SM (No 2) [2017] FCAFC 207 Northern Territory v Sangare [2019] HCA 25; 265 CLR 164 Oshlack v Richmond River Council [1998] HCA 11; 193 CLR 72 Southern Cross Exploration NL v Fire & All Risks Insurance Co Ltd (No 2) (1990) 21 NSWLR 200