Helal v McConnell Dowell Constructors (Aust) Pty Ltd (No 4)

[2011] FCA 1485

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Helal v McConnell Dowell Constructors (Aust) Pty Ltd (No 4) [2011] FCA 1485

Citation:		Helal v McConnell Dowell Constructors (Aust) Pty Ltd (No 4) [2011] FCA 1485
Parties:		LINDA HELAL v MCCONNELL DOWELL CONSTRUCTORS (AUST) PTY LTD (ACN 002 929 017)
File number:		VID 632 of 2010
Judge:		TRACEY J
Date of judgment:		20 December 2011
Cases cited:		Helal v McConnell Dowell Constructors (Aust) Pty Ltd (No 3) [2011] FCA 1344 referred to
Date of hearing:	Heard on the papers
Place:	Melbourne
Division:	GENERAL DIVISION
Category:	No catchwords
Number of paragraphs:	4
Counsel for the Applicant:	Mr J Snaden
Solicitor for the Applicant:	Australian Government Solicitor
Counsel for the Respondent:	Mr S Wood and Mr M Follett
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Ai Legal Group

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION	VID 632 of 2010

BETWEEN:	LINDA HELAL Applicant
AND:	MCCONNELL DOWELL CONSTRUCTORS (AUST) PTY LTD (ACN 002 929 017) Respondent

JUDGE:	TRACEY J
DATE OF ORDER:	20 DECEMBER 2011
WHERE MADE:	MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The applicant pay the respondent’s costs, including reserved costs, such costs to be taxed in default of agreement.

Note:Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION	VID 632 of 2010

BETWEEN:	LINDA HELAL Applicant
AND:	MCCONNELL DOWELL CONSTRUCTORS (AUST) PTY LTD (ACN 002 929 017) Respondent

JUDGE:	TRACEY J
DATE:	20 DECEMBER 2011
PLACE:	MELBOURNE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. On 25 November 2011 I ordered that the application in this proceeding be dismissed:  see Helal v McConnell Dowell Constructors (Aust) Pty Ltd (No 3) [2011] FCA 1344.

2. When I handed down the judgment the parties were represented but no order for costs was sought.  No order for costs was made.

3. By letter dated 12 December 2011 the solicitor for the respondent wrote to my Associate advising that an anticipatory application had been made during submissions by counsel appearing for the respondent.  The solicitor advised that the applicant’s solicitors did not oppose the making of an order that the applicant pay the respondent’s costs, including reserved costs, to be taxed in default of agreement.  The applicant’s solicitor subsequently confirmed that the applicant did not oppose the making of such orders.

4. The orders sought should be made.

I certify that the preceding four (4) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Tracey.

Associate:
Dated:        20 December 2011