Maea v Acciona Infrastructure Australia Pty Ltd

The case of Maea v Acciona Infrastructure Australia Pty Ltd involved a cross-claim and subsequent interlocutory application for costs. The parties were Maea, the plaintiff, Acciona Infrastructure Australia Pty Ltd, the defendant, and a cross-defendant, who sought to have a previous costs order varied. The cross-defendant argued that the defendant should bear the costs of the cross-defendant, as the defendant's notice of motion primarily addressed the issues in the cross-claim, and the cross-defendant had not filed any evidence or written submissions in response. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia.

The legal issue before the court was whether the cross-defendant should bear the costs of the cross-defendant as a result of the defendant's notice of motion. The court had to determine whether the cross-defendant's appearance could have been mentioned by the plaintiff, and whether any orders were made against the cross-defendant. The court also had to consider whether the cross-defendant's lack of evidence or submissions on the notice of motion should affect the costs order.

In determining the matter, the court noted that the cross-defendant had not filed any evidence or submissions on the notice of motion, and had not raised any issues that were not already before the court. The court found that the cross-defendant's appearance could have been mentioned by the plaintiff, and that no orders were made against the cross-defendant. The court held that the cross-defendant should bear their own costs, and that the defendant was not liable for the cross-defendant's costs. The court found that the cross-defendant's lack of evidence or submissions did not affect the costs order, as the cross-defendant had not raised any new issues or arguments.

The court therefore dismissed the cross-defendant's application for a variation of the costs order. The cross-defendant was ordered to pay their own costs of the application, on an indemnity basis. The defendant was not ordered to pay any costs to the cross-defendant.