Siemens WLL v BIC Contracting LLC (costs)

Link copied
Case Copied 10 min read

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Siemens WLL v BIC Contracting LLC (costs) [2024] FCA 201

File number: NSD 1152 of 2021
Judgment of: STEWART J
Date of judgment: 6 March 2024
Catchwords: COSTS – application to vary costs order – consideration of procedural history – application dismissed
Legislation: Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 43
Cases cited:

Bostik Australia Pty Ltd v Liddiard (No 2) [2009] NSWCA 304

Findex Group Ltd v McKay (No 3) [2020] FCA 259

Firebird Global Master Fund II Ltd v Republic of Nauru (No 2) [2015] HCA 53; 90 ALJR 270

PKT Technologies Pty Ltd v Peter Vogel Instruments Pty Ltd (No 2) [2020] FCAFC 46

Siemens WLL v BIC Contracting LLC (garnishee order) [2023] FCA 1664

Division: General Division
Registry: New South Wales
National Practice Area: Commercial and Corporations
Sub-area: Commercial Arbitration
Number of paragraphs: 27
Date of last submission: 1 March 2024
Date of hearing: Determined on the papers.
Counsel for the Applicants: E Ball
Solicitor for the Applicants: Clayton Utz
Counsel for the Respondent: The Respondent did not appear.
Counsel for the garnishee, LMENA Pty Ltd: D Harris
Solicitor for the garnishee, LMENA Pty Ltd: Allens

ORDERS

NSD 1152 of 2021
BETWEEN:

SIEMENS W.L.L.

First Applicant

SIEMENS AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT

Second Applicant

AND:

BIC CONTRACTING LLC

Respondent

LMENA PTY LTD

Garnishee

ORDER MADE BY:

STEWART J

DATE OF ORDER:

6 MARCH 2024

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The applicants’ application to vary the costs order made on 22 December 2023 be dismissed with costs.

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


REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

STEWART J:

  1. On 22 December 2023, I set aside a garnishee order issued in favour of the applicants (Siemens) against LMENA Pty Ltd: Siemens WLL v BIC Contracting LLC (garnishee order) [2023] FCA 1664 (J). The set-aside order was made in an interlocutory application brought by LMENA to set aside the garnishee order which had been issued pursuant to orders made in an ex parte application brought by Siemens. In setting aside the garnishee order, I ordered that Siemens pay LMENA’s costs on the basis that the costs follow the event, but I gave the parties leave to apply for a variation of the costs order because I had not heard submissions on costs.

  2. Siemens now applies for a variation of the costs order. It submits that the appropriate order is that LMENA pay Siemens’s costs in respect of issues of UAE law, which it helpfully defines as those involving the preparation of the expert report, affidavits and exhibits relating to matters of UAE law, certified translations of documents and solicitor and counsel fees incidental to those matters.

  3. Alternatively, Siemens submits that each party should bear its own costs or, as a further alternative, Siemens should only be required to pay LMENA’s costs from after LMENA served its reply submissions on 8 December 2023.

  4. Siemens advances the following contentions in favour of the variation of…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Siemens WLL v BIC Contracting LLC (costs) 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
[2024] FCA 201
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved Siemens Wireless Lan Links (Siemens) as the applicant, and BIC Contracting LLC as the respondent. The matter related to an application to vary a previous costs order made by the court on 22 December 2023. The Federal Court heard the application, and the central issue was whether the court should alter its earlier costs order.

The legal issue that the court had to determine was whether there were sufficient grounds to justify varying the costs order that had been made previously. The court considered the procedural history of the case, including the reasons for the original costs order and the arguments presented by both parties regarding the current application. The focus was on whether the application met the criteria for a variation of the costs order, as well as the broader principles of costs allocation in litigation.

In delivering its decision, the court emphasised the importance of procedural fairness and the principles that guide the allocation of costs in litigation. It found that the applicant had not provided adequate justification for varying the earlier costs order. The court was satisfied that the original costs order was appropriate and that there were no compelling reasons to alter it. Consequently, the application to vary the costs order was dismissed, with the court ordering the applicant to pay the respondent's costs of the application.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The applicants’ application to vary the costs order made on 22 December 2023 be dismissed with costs.

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.