Scott v Grodd (No 2) - [2025] FedCFamC2G 434

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 2)
Scott v Grodd (No 2) [2025] FedCFamC2G 434

File number: MLG 2305 of 2023

Judgment of: JUDGE CHAMPION

Date of judgment: 28 March 2025

Catchwords: CONSUMER PROTECTION – Interlocutory application as to amendment to Statement of Claim – Where both parties made an application for the other party to pay costs – Ordered that the Applicant pay the costs of the amendment on the basis that he sought a dispensation and on the basis of costs wasted at the interlocutory hearing because the Applicant ultimately sought to amend his statement of claim in a form not provided before or at the hearing – Costs fixed in a set amount by reference to the events based scale in Schedule 2 to the Rules and Schedule 3 to Federal Court Rules where the scale in Schedule 2 to the Rules was insufficient

Legislation:
Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 s. 214

Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2)(General Federal Law) Rules 2021 rr. 1.06, 7.01, 22.02(2)(d)

Federal Court Rules 2011 Sch. 3, item 2.1

Cases cited:
Barnes v Addy (1874) LR 9 Ch App 244

Chahwan v Euphoric Pty Ltd t/as [2009] NSWSC 805

CIQ17v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (No 2) [2020] FCCA 3467

Commonwealth v Harrison (No 2) (2020) 381 ALR 328; [20202] FCA 786

Farah Constructions Pty Ltd v Say-Dee Pty Ltd (2007) 230 CLR 89; [2007] HCA 22

FJS18 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2024] FCA 433

G. E. Dal Pont, Law of Costs (5^th ed, 2021) para. 14.37

Division: Division 2 General Federal Law

Number of paragraphs: 41

Date of last submissions: 11 March 2025

Date of hearing: On the papers

Place: Melbourne

Applicant: In person

Solicitor for the Respondents: Suburban Law
ORDERS

MLG 2305 of 2023

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)

BETWEEN:
JUSTIN SCOTT

Applicant

AND:
WOLFGANG ULRICH WALTER GRODD

First Respondent

SLEEPING BEAUTIES PTY LTD

Second Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

JUDGE CHAMPION

DATE OF ORDER:

28 MARCH 2025

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.On or before 28 April 2025, the Applicant pay the Respondents’ costs of and occasioned by the application to amend his statement of claim set in the amount of $6,822.99.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.
Note: The Court may vary or set aside a judgment or order to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 17.05(2)(g) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 17.05 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
JUDGE CHAMPION:
INTRODUCTION

On 28 August 2024 Mr Scott, the Applicant, made an interlocutory application to file an Amended Statement of Claim (the Amendment Application) as to which he required leave…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Scott v Grodd (No 2)

Details

AGLC: Scott v Grodd (No 2) [2025] FedCFamC2G 434
Case: [2025] FedCFamC2G 434
Decision Date: 28 March 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties in this case were Scott, the applicant, and Grodd, the respondent. The dispute was an interlocutory application regarding an amendment to the statement of claim in a consumer protection matter. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. Both parties had applied for the other to pay the costs associated with the amendment to the statement of claim.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the applicant should be allowed to amend his statement of claim, and if so, whether the costs associated with this amendment should be paid by the applicant or the respondent. The court was also required to determine the appropriate amount of costs to be awarded to the respondent if the application for amendment was successful.

In delivering the judgment, the court noted that the applicant had sought a dispensation to amend his statement of claim, which was not provided before or at the hearing. Additionally, the court found that the applicant had wasted costs at the interlocutory hearing. As a result, the court ordered that the applicant pay the costs of the amendment. The court fixed the amount of costs by reference to the events-based scale in Schedule 2 to the Federal Court Rules and Schedule 3 to the Federal Court Rules, given that the scale in Schedule 2 to the Rules was insufficient.

In conclusion, the court allowed the applicant to amend his statement of claim but ordered that he pay the costs associated with the amendment. The costs were fixed in a set amount based on the events-based scale in the Federal Court Rules.

Orders