Mijac Investments Pty Ltd v Graham

Mijac Investments Pty Ltd applied to the Federal Court of Australia to set aside certain decisions of the Court, which it argued were not properly entered or were interlocutory in nature. The applicant also sought to rely on new evidence relating to material on the Court file and alleged that the Court's guidance in relation to service was misleading. The application included a request for costs against the solicitor of the applicant, Terence Ferreira. The legal issues before the Court were whether the orders should be set aside, whether the Court should consider new evidence in the application, and whether the principles relevant to costs orders against practitioners were satisfied.

The Court held that the orders were not interlocutory in nature and thus not subject to being set aside on that basis. The Court also found that the applicant had not satisfied the criteria for setting aside orders on the basis of new evidence. Regarding the misleading guidance, the Court held that the applicant had not provided sufficient evidence to support this claim. The Court then considered the principles relevant to costs orders against practitioners, specifically sections 37M and 37N of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth). The Court held that the applicant had not demonstrated that the costs order against the solicitor was necessary to ensure compliance with the Act, and therefore, the application for costs was refused.

The Court refused the application to set aside the orders and ordered the applicant to pay the Registrar's costs of and incidental to its application for leave to issue a subpoena. The Court also ordered that the applications made in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 of the applicant’s interlocutory application dated 22 January 2013 be refused, and that Terence Ferreira pay the respondents’ costs of the applications. The Court made these orders under Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.