Federal Court of Australia
Federal Court of Australia
Lockyer for and on behalf of the Robe River Kuruma People v Citic Pacific Mining Management Pty Ltd (No 3) [2024] FCA 271 File number: WAD 116 of 2022
Judgment of: COLVIN J
Date of judgment: 22 March 2024
Catchwords: COSTS - indemnity costs - offers to compromise - where offer to compromise made pursuant to direction of the Court - where offer to compromise rejected - whether offer involved genuine compromise - whether rejection of offer was imprudent or unreasonable - whether costs should be awarded on indemnity basis - held rejection of offer not unreasonable - costs to be determined on party-party basis
Legislation: Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) r 25
Cases cited: Anchorage Capital Partners Pty Limited v ACPA Pty Ltd (No 2) [2018] FCAFC 112 Anchorage Capital Partners Pty Ltd v ACPA Pty Ltd (No 4) [2016] FCA 218 Elecspess Pty Ltd v LED Technologies Pty Ltd [2013] FCAFC 116 Kazar (Liquidator) v Kargarian; In the matter of Frontier Architects Pty Ltd (In Liq) [2011] FCAFC 136; (2011) 197 FCR 113 Lockyer for and on behalf of the Robe River Kuruma People v Citic Pacific Mining Management Pty Ltd (No 2) [2024] FCA 154 Norbis v Norbis (1986) 161 CLR 513 Oshlack v Richmond River Council [1998] HCA 11; (1998) 193 CLR 72 Sagacious Legal Pty Ltd v Wesfarmers General Insurance Ltd [2011] FCAFC 53 Sydney Equine Coaches Pty Ltd v Gorst [2017] FCAFC 34 Thaluntha Pty Ltd v Citic Pacific Mining Management Pty Ltd [2019] WASC 196
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