FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| TRADESMAN TECHNOLOGIES PTY LTD v AMEDURI (No.2) | [2011] FMCA 179 |
| PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – COSTS – Application by respondent for costs of interlocutory application – power of Court to award costs – whether inherent jurisdiction or implied incidental power or express discretionary power – whether respondent wholly successful – whether the Court should order costs to be taxed under Order 62 of the Federal Court Rules (Cth) – whether costs to be fixed according to Schedule 1 of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 (Cth) – whether costs should be assessed now or at the completion of the proceedings. COURTS AND JURISDICTION – Federal courts – whether inherent jurisdiction or implied incidental power. |
| Federal Court Rules (Cth), O.62 Federal Magistrates Act 1999 (Cth), ss.15(a), 79, 81, 86, 88 Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 (Cth), rr.21.02, 21.10, 21.11, 21.15, Schedule 1 |
| J Tarrant, Amending Final Judgments and Orders (Sydney: Federation Press, 2010) |
| Applicant: | TRADESMAN TECHNOLOGIES PTY LTD |
| Respondent: | JOHN AMEDURI |
| File Number: | PEG 88 of 2010 |
| Judgment of: | Lucev FM |
| Hearing date: | By written submissions |
| Date of Last Submission: | 10 February 2011 |
| Delivered at: | Perth |
| Delivered on: | 25 March 2011 |
REPRESENTATION
| Solicitors for the Applicant: | De Vita & Dixon Lawyers |
| Solicitors for the Respondent: | McDonald Pynt Lawyers |
ORDERS
The applicant pay the respondent’s costs of the application in a case filed 13 July 2010 fixed in the sum of $2,785 by 27 April 2011.
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT PERTH |
PEG 88 of 2010
| TRADESMAN TECHNOLOGIES PTY LTD |
Applicant
And
| JOHN AMEDURI |
Respondent
REASONS…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Tradesman Technologies Pty Ltd v Ameduri (No.2) 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2011] FMCA 179
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues the court needed to address included whether the respondent was wholly successful in their application, thereby justifying the award of costs, and whether the court should order costs to be taxed under Order 62 of the Federal Court Rules (Cth). Another point of contention was whether the costs should be assessed immediately or deferred until the conclusion of the proceedings. The court also had to consider the implications of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 (Cth) on the calculation of these costs.
The court determined that the power to award costs arose from the court's inherent jurisdiction, not from an implied incidental power or an express discretionary power. It found that the respondent was successful in their application, thereby warranting an award of costs. The court opted to fix the costs now rather than deferring it until the end of the proceedings, and set the amount at $2,785 to be paid by the applicant by 27 April 2011. The court directed that these costs should be calculated in accordance with Schedule 1 of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 (Cth).
The final order was that the applicant was to pay the respondent's costs of the application in the specified sum of $2,785 by 27 April 2011.
Orders
Orders of the court
1.
The applicant pay the respondent’s costs of the application in a case filed 13 July 2010 fixed in the sum of $2,785 by 27 April 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.