FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Duus v Dalvella Pty Ltd (No. 2) [2008] FCA 187
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – consideration of an application for an order in relation to costs pursuant to order 62, rule 3 of the Federal Court Rules
Federal Court Rules, Order 62, Rule 3
ROSS ANDREW DUUS AND DAVID JOHN CRANSTOUN v DALVELLA PTY LTD ACN 076 620 409 (IN ITS CAPACITY AS TRUSTEE FOR THE CLIFFSIDE TRUST) AND DONEMATE PTY LTD ACN 076 620 454 (IN ITS CAPACITY AS TRUSTEE FOR THE KINGS BEACH TRUST)
QUD 28 OF 2007
GREENWOOD J
23 JANUARY 2008
BRISBANE
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY
QUD 28 OF 2007
BETWEEN:
ROSS ANDREW DUUS
First ApplicantDAVID JOHN CRANSTOUN
Second ApplicantAND:
DALVELLA PTY LTD (ACN 076 620 409) (IN ITS CAPACITY AS TRUSTEE FOR THE CLIFFSIDE TRUST)
First RespondentDONEMATE PTY LTD (ACN 076 620 454) (IN ITS CAPACITY AS TRUSTEE FOR THE KINGS BEACH TRUST)
Second Respondent
JUDGE:
GREENWOOD J
DATE OF ORDER:
23 JANUARY 2008
WHERE MADE:
BRISBANE
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.Leave be given to the first and second applicants to deliver and tax a bill of costs in relation to the costs the subject of order 2 of the orders of the Court made on 23 January 2008, notwithstanding that the principal proceeding is not concluded and the respondents in the proceeding shall pay those costs either determined by taxation or by agreement forthwith upon taxation or agreement notwithstanding that the principal proceeding is not concluded.
Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY
QUD 28 OF 2007
BETWEEN:
ROSS ANDREW DUUS
First ApplicantDAVID JOHN CRANSTOUN
Second ApplicantAND:
DALVELLA PTY LTD ACN 076 620 409 (IN ITS CAPACITY AS TRUSTEE FOR THE CLIFFSIDE TRUST
First RespondentDONEMATE PTY LTD ACN 076 620 454 (IN ITS CAPACITY AS TRUSTEE FOR THE KINGS BEACH TRUST)
Second Respondent
JUDGE:
GREENWOOD J
DATE:
23 JANUARY 2008
PLACE:
BRISBANE
EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
I have before me an application for an order that the costs, the subject of order (2) of the orders made today in Duus v Dalvella Pty Ltd [2008] FCA 26, be the subject of a further order pursuant to order 62 rule 3(3) that the party having the benefit of the costs order, the first and second applicants, be entitled to deliver a bill of costs and recover those costs prior to the determination of the proceedings. The authority of Jianshe Southern Pty Ltd v Turnbull Cooktown Pty Ltd (No. 2) – BC200704540 has been cited to me as a basis upon which leave ought not to be given pursuant to order 62 rule 3(3). The point of differentiation between that decision of Besanko J and the present case is that the circumstances confronting Besanko J involved default in the conduct of a proceeding.
The orders made in this matter (Duus v Dalvella) relate to orders consequent upon an independent application for leave to extend time for leave to appeal from an interlocutory judgment. The applicants for leave have failed to comply with the rules and seek to make out special grounds for leave. I am satisfied that that matter is a discrete matter rather than a costs order in the course of the resolution of step in the proceeding itself. Accordingly, I make a further order that the costs of the interlocutory proceeding shall be costs which the party having the benefit of that order is entitled to pursue and I give leave to deliver a bill of costs immediately.
I certify that the preceding two (2) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Greenwood. Associate:
Dated: 23 January 2008
Counsel for the Applicants (Respondents on the Motion): Mr Sullivan Solicitor for the Applicants (Respondents on the Motion): DLA Phillips Fox Solicitor for the Respondents (Applicants on the Motion): Mr Lynch, Lynch & Company Date of Hearing: 23 January 2008 Date of Judgment: 23 January 2008
- AGLC
- Duus v Dalvella Pty Ltd (No. 2) [2008] FCA 187
- Case
- [2008] FCA 187
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was required to determine whether the applicants had a valid basis for proceeding with the taxation of their costs under the circumstances and whether it was appropriate to allow such taxation when the principal proceeding was still ongoing. The legal issue was whether the court could grant leave for the taxation of costs in a situation where the main proceeding had not been resolved, and if so, under what conditions.
The court found that there were compelling reasons for allowing the applicants to proceed with the taxation of their costs. The court noted that the nature of the costs and the circumstances suggested that immediate taxation would be in the interest of justice and efficiency. The court reasoned that the applicants had demonstrated a valid basis for the taxation of their costs, and it was appropriate to allow such taxation despite the principal proceeding not being concluded. The court emphasised that the respondents would be responsible for paying the costs determined by taxation or by agreement.
In conclusion, the court granted leave for the applicants to deliver and tax their costs in relation to the specified costs, despite the principal proceeding not being concluded. The court's decision was based on the compelling reasons presented by the applicants and the court's consideration of the interest of justice and efficiency. The respondents were ordered to pay the costs either determined by taxation or by agreement forthwith upon taxation or agreement.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Leave be given to the first and second applicants to deliver and tax a bill of costs in relation to the costs the subject of order 2 of the orders of the Court made on 23 January 2008, notwithstanding that the principal proceeding is not concluded and the respondents in the proceeding shall pay those costs either determined by taxation or by agreement forthwith upon taxation or agreement notwithstanding that the principal proceeding is not concluded.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Established by: GREENWOOD J
Full text does not contain this section.