Federal Court of Australia
Federal Court of Australia
Bist v Cyan Stone Clydesdale Estate 1 Pty Ltd (No 2) [2024] FCA 1332 File number: NSD 1174 of 2024
Judgment of: JACKMAN J
Date of judgment: 19 November 2024
Catchwords: COSTS – where applicants applied unsuccessfully for an interlocutory injunction – where respondents seek their costs of the interlocutory injunction application on the indemnity basis – where matter subsequently allocated to a docket judge – whether applicants should have known that they had no chance of success in obtaining an interlocutory injunction – whether applicants unreasonably rejected an offer of compromise – application for indemnity costs rejected COSTS – where respondents seek that their costs of the interlocutory injunction application be payable forthwith – whether to depart from the usual position under r 40.13 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) that if an order for costs is made on an interlocutory application the party in whose favour the order is made must not tax those costs until the proceeding is finished – application dismissed
Legislation: Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) r 40.13
Cases cited: Anchorage Capital Partners Pty Ltd v ACPA Pty Ltd (No 2) [2018] FCAFC 112 Bist v Cyan Stone Clydesdale Estate 1 Pty Ltd [2024] FCA 1108 Wills v Chief Executive Officer of the Australian Skills Quality Authority (Costs) [2022] FCAFC 43
Division: General Division
Registry: New South Wales
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