Innes v AAL Aviation Ltd (No 2)

Link copied
Case Copied 27 min read

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Innes v AAL Aviation Limited (No 2) [2018] FCAFC 130

Appeal from: Brewer v AAL Aviation Limited [2016] FCA 93
File numbers: ACD 12 of 2016
ACD 13 of 2016
Judges: TRACEY, BROMBERG AND WHITE JJ
Date of judgment: 15 August 2018
Catchwords: COSTS – cost orders – applications by the Respondent for the Court to fix lump sum costs in relation to two appeals – whether lump sum costs are appropriate – whether the costs claimed by the Respondent were fairly and reasonably incurred – orders for lump sum costs for reduced amounts made
Legislation:

Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) ss 37M(1), 43

Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) rr 40.01, 40.02
Cases cited:

Beach Petroleum NL v Johnson (No 2) (1995) 57 FCR 119

Bitek Pty Ltd v IConnect Pty Ltd [2012] FCA 506

Calderbank v Calderbank [1975] 3 All ER 333

Commonwealth of Australia v Cornwell [2007] HCA 16; (2007) 229 CLR 519

Fewin Pty Ltd v Burke (No 3) [2017] FCA 693

Hislop v Paltar Petroleum Ltd (No 4) [2017] FCA 1632

Innes v AAL Aviation Limited [2017] FCAFC 202

Innes v Commonwealth [2015] ACTA 33

Paciocco v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd (No 2) [2017] FCAFC 146; (2017) 253 FCR 403

Date of hearing: Determined on the papers
Registry: Australian Capital Territory
Division: General Division
National Practice Area: Employment & Industrial Relations
Category: Catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 78
Counsel for the Appellants: Ms M Castle
Solicitor for the Appellants: Snedden Hall & Gallop
Solicitor for the Respondent: Johnson Winter & Slattery

ORDERS

ACD 12 of 2016
BETWEEN:

MALCOLM JAMES INNES

Appellant
AND:

AAL AVIATION LIMITED (ACN 008 642 886)

Respondent

JUDGES:

TRACEY, BROMBERG AND WHITE JJ

DATE OF ORDER:

15 AUGUST 2018

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The Appellant pay the Respondent a lump sum of $61,548.47 comprised of $21,125 for solicitors’ costs, $37,000 for counsel fees and $3,423.47 for disbursements.

2.The Appellant pay the Respondent $2,500 for the Respondent’s costs incurred in making the interlocutory application together with the Court’s filing fee for the filing of the interlocutory application.

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


ORDERS

ACD 13 of 2016
BETWEEN:

STUART ARTHUR HUNTER
Appellant

AND:

AAL AVIATION LIMITED (ACN 008 642 886)

Respondent

JUDGE:

TRACEY, BROMBERG AND WHITE JJ

DATE OF ORDER:

15 AUGUST 2018

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The Appellant pay the Respondent a lump sum of $61,548.47 comprised of $21,125 for solicitors’ costs, $37,000 for counsel fees and $3,423.47 for disbursements.

2.The Appellant pay the Respondent $2,500 for the Respondent’s costs incurred in making the interlocutory application together with the Court’s filing fee for the filing of the interlocutory application.

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


REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

TRACEY, BROMBERG AND WHITE JJ:

Introduction

  1. This judgment concerns applications by the Respondent for the Court to fix lump sum costs following…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Innes v AAL Aviation Ltd (No 2) 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
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2018] FCAFC 130
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Innes v AAL Aviation Ltd (No 2), the appellant, Mr. Innes, appealed against costs orders made by the Federal Court. The respondent, AAL Aviation Ltd, had applied for the Court to fix lump sum costs in relation to two separate appeals. The primary legal issues before the court involved whether lump sum costs were appropriate and whether the costs claimed by the respondent were fairly and reasonably incurred.

The court examined the nature of the appeals, considering them to be of a relatively minor nature. It held that the lump sum approach to costs was appropriate given the nature of the appeals. The court also found that the costs claimed by the respondent were fairly and reasonably incurred. The court ordered that the appellant pay a reduced lump sum for the costs of the appeals, taking into account the minor nature of the appeals and the respondent’s conduct during the proceedings.

The final orders of the court required the appellant to pay the respondent a lump sum of $61,548.47, comprised of $21,125 for solicitors' costs, $37,000 for counsel fees, and $3,423.47 for disbursements. Additionally, the appellant was ordered to pay $2,500 for the respondent’s costs incurred in making the interlocutory application, together with the Court's filing fee for the filing of the interlocutory application. These orders were made pursuant to Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The Appellant pay the Respondent a lump sum of $61,548.47 comprised of $21,125 for solicitors’ costs, $37,000 for counsel fees and $3,423.47 for disbursements.

2. The Appellant pay the Respondent $2,500 for the Respondent’s costs incurred in making the interlocutory application together with the Court’s filing fee for the filing of the interlocutory application.

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.