Federal Court of Australia
Federal Court of Australia
Roberts-Smith v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Limited (No 46) [2023] FCA 1630 File numbers: NSD 1485 of 2018 NSD 1486 of 2018 NSD 1487 of 2018
Judgment of: BESANKO J
Date of judgment: 21 December 2023
Catchwords: COSTS — consideration of whether costs should be awarded in a lump sum under r 40.02 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) — where respondents successful in three defamation proceedings — where the applicant ordered to pay the respondents' costs of the proceedings on an indemnity basis — where a third party ordered to pay the respondents' costs of the proceedings and of the third party costs application on an indemnity basis — consideration of the Costs Practice Note and relevant authorities — whether a lump sum costs order is appropriate having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case
Legislation: Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) ss 37M, 37N Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) r 40.02
Cases cited: Beach Petroleum NL v Johnson (No 2) (1995) 57 FCR 119 Kerembla Pty Ltd v XL Insurance Company SE, trading as Brooklyn Underwriting (No 2) [2023] FCA 970 Paciocco v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd (No 2) [2017] FCAFC 146; (2017) 253 FCR 403 Roberts-Smith v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Limited (No 43) [2023] FCA 886 Roberts-Smith v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Limited (No 45) [2023] FCA 1474 Seven Network (Operations) Limited v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Limited [2023] FCAFC 185 Zreika v Royal (No 2) [2019] FCAFC 237; (2019) 141 ACSR 261
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