Ashby v Slipper (No 3)

The case of Ashby v Slipper (No 3) involved a complex dispute between the parties, with James Hunter Ashby pursuing a claim against Peter Slipper. The matter came before the court with several interlocutory applications regarding costs, including Ashby's attempt to amend his initial application and his request to vacate certain costs orders made by the Full Court. The Commonwealth of Australia also became involved as a party due to its interests in the matter.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the respondent, who had settled a claim by Ashby, could be subject to a costs order as a non-party, given that the other respondent was unable to meet the costs order. The court needed to determine if Ashby had established an entitlement to costs against the non-party, particularly when the non-party had not directly or indirectly supported the other respondent's conduct of the proceedings. Additionally, the non-party had settled the related claim against it on the condition that there would be no liability for costs.

The court ruled that Ashby's application to amend his interlocutory application and to vacate the costs orders was refused. The reasoning behind this decision was that Ashby had not shown that the non-party had supported the other respondent's conduct of the proceeding. Furthermore, the non-party had settled the claim on the basis that there would be no liability for costs, which was a significant factor in the court's decision. Consequently, the application for costs against the non-party was also refused.

The court further ordered that Ashby pay the Commonwealth of Australia's costs of the application on an indemnity basis, limited to costs reasonably incurred in resisting the proposed amendment of that application. Additionally, Peter Slipper's interlocutory application was also refused. The entry of these orders is governed by Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.