Snedden v Republic of Croatia (No 2)

The respondents, Snedden and others, sought leave to appeal against the decision of the primary judge in the Federal Court of Australia, which dismissed their claim against the Republic of Croatia for breach of international law, including genocide. The primary judge had made a costs order against the respondents, and the respondents applied for leave to appeal against the costs orders as well as the dismissal of their claim. The main legal issues were whether the respondents had leave to appeal against the costs orders and whether the appeal against the dismissal of their claim should be allowed. The court found that the respondents did not have leave to appeal the costs orders because they did not show that the primary judge's decision was wrong or that there was a serious question of law to be decided. The court also found that the appeal against the dismissal of the claim should not be allowed because the respondents did not establish that the primary judge's decision was wrong or that there was a serious question of law to be decided. The court held that the primary judge had correctly applied the law and that the respondents' claims were not supported by the evidence.

The court refused the respondents' application to vary the costs orders. The court held that the primary judge had exercised his discretion properly in making the costs orders and that there was no basis for the respondents to challenge the costs orders on appeal. The court also held that the respondents had not shown that the costs orders were excessive or oppressive or that there were any special circumstances that warranted varying the costs orders. The court noted that the respondents had not provided any new evidence or arguments to support their application and that the application was an abuse of process. The court concluded that the respondents' application should be dismissed and that the costs orders should remain as made by the primary judge.