Loyola v Cryeng Pty Ltd (No 2)

Loyola brought an appeal against Cryeng, contesting orders made in the Federal Circuit Court. The appeal centered on whether the Federal Court should recall its orders from May 2012 due to perceived deficiencies in the reasons for judgment. Specifically, Loyola argued that certain submissions made during the appeal had not been addressed adequately in the reasons for judgment. The court was also tasked with determining the appropriate costs to be awarded at first instance and on appeal. This included whether the costs at first instance should be determined under the earlier rules, and if so, what the implications of such a decision were. Furthermore, the court needed to decide how to allocate costs on appeal, given that the appellants were successful in part but not on all issues.

The court began by addressing the application to recall the orders, concluding that there were no grounds to do so. The reasoning for judgment was deemed sufficient, and the court found no merit in Loyola's argument that critical submissions had been overlooked. Turning to the costs, the court determined that the earlier rules should apply, following Rule 1.04(3) of the Federal Court Rules 2011. Consequently, Cryeng was awarded $50,000 in costs at first instance, and the appellants were ordered to pay these costs. Regarding the appeal, the court found that the appellants were successful for the most part, but not entirely. The court held that it was appropriate to order that Cryeng pay 85% of the appellants' costs on appeal, balancing the success of the parties and the overall outcome of the litigation.

In conclusion, the Federal Court dismissed Loyola's application to recall the earlier orders, upheld the costs awarded at first instance, and set the costs of the appeal. The court's decision reflected a careful consideration of the procedural and substantive issues presented, ensuring that the costs were allocated fairly in light of the partial success of both parties. The final orders mandated that the appellants pay the respondent's costs at first instance, while Cryeng was to cover 85% of the appellants' costs on appeal.