FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Hastwell v Kott Gunning (No 4) [2019] FCA 1805
File number: NSD 714 of 2017 Judge: JACKSON J Date of judgment: 4 November 2019 Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - oral application for leave to appeal from interlocutory judgment - discovery - insufficient doubt about correctness of decision - no substantial injustice - application dismissed
COSTS - costs of and incidental to case management hearings and interlocutory applications - turns on own facts
Legislation: Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) rr 20.14, 20.17, 20.20, 20.21, 35.01 Cases cited: Décor Corporation Pty Ltd v Dart Industries Inc (1991) 33 FCR 397
Dennis v Chambers Investment Planners Pty Ltd [2012] FCA 63; (2012) 201 FCR 321
Harman v Secretary of State for the Home Department [1983] 1 AC 280
Hastwell v Kott Gunning (No 3) [2019] FCA 1641
Hearne v Street [2008] HCA 36; (2008) 235 CLR 125
Major Engineering Pty Ltd v Helios Electroheat Pty Ltd (No 2) [2006] VSCA 114
Mentink v Minister for Justice [2016] FCA 432
Minogue v Williams [2000] FCA 125; (2000) 60 ALD 366
Parker v Laureti, in the matter of Waverley Estate Aged Wines Pty Limited (in liq) [2016] FCA 352
Date of hearing: 30 October 2019 Registry: Western Australia Division: General Division National Practice Area: Employment & Industrial Relations Category: Catchwords Number of paragraphs: 62 Counsel for the Applicant: The applicant appeared in person Counsel for the Respondent: Mr JB Blackburn SC Solicitor for the Respondent: HLS Legal ORDERS
NSD 714 of 2017 BETWEEN: HAYDYN GARY HASTWELL
Applicant
AND: KOTT GUNNING
Respondent
JUDGE:
JACKSON J
DATE OF ORDER:
30 OCTOBER 2019
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The applicant's application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
2.The applicant must pay the respondent's costs of the application for leave to appeal in any event.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
ORDERS
NSD 714 of 2017 BETWEEN: HAYDYN GARY HASTWELL
Applicant
AND: KOTT GUNNING
Respondent
JUDGE:
JACKSON J
DATE OF ORDER:
4 NOVEMBER 2019
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The following costs are the respondent's costs in any event:
(a)the costs of and incidental to the case management hearing of 15 February 2019;
(b)the costs of and incidental to the case management hearing of 5 April 2019;
(c)the costs of and incidental to the case management hearing of 30 May 2019;
(d)the costs of and incidental to the respondent's interlocutory application filed 12 July 2019;
(e)85% of the costs of and incidental to the applicant's interlocutory application filed 12 July 2019 (and there is otherwise no order as to the costs of that interlocutory application); and
(f)save to the extent covered by the orders made on 30 October 2019, the costs of and incidental to the case management hearing of that day.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
JACKSON J:
These reasons deal with two matters. The first is…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Hastwell v Kott Gunning (No 4) and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2019] FCA 1805
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court had to decide whether the applicant had shown an insufficient doubt about the correctness of the interlocutory judgment and whether there was a substantial injustice in denying the leave to appeal. Additionally, the court had to determine the costs associated with various case management hearings and interlocutory applications that were part of the proceedings.
The court found that there was insufficient doubt about the correctness of the interlocutory judgment, and therefore, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed. The court also ruled that the costs of and incidental to the case management hearings and interlocutory applications would turn on the facts of each case. Consequently, specific costs were allocated to the respondent, including the costs of certain hearings and a portion of the costs of one interlocutory application filed by the applicant.
The final orders included the allocation of specific costs to the respondent for certain case management hearings and interlocutory applications, with a particular emphasis on the costs associated with the interlocutory application filed by the applicant. These orders were made in accordance with Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The following costs are the respondent's costs in any event:
(a) the costs of and incidental to the case management hearing of 15 February 2019;
(b) the costs of and incidental to the case management hearing of 5 April 2019;
(c) the costs of and incidental to the case management hearing of 30 May 2019;
(d) the costs of and incidental to the respondent's interlocutory application filed 12 July 2019;
(e) 85% of the costs of and incidental to the applicant's interlocutory application filed 12 July 2019 (and there is otherwise no order as to the costs of that interlocutory application); and
(f) save to the extent covered by the orders made on 30 October 2019, the costs of and incidental to the case management hearing of that day.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
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
Full text does not contain this section.