Legal Research
Cases
Vasyli v AOL International Pty Ltd

Vasyli v AOL International Pty Ltd

Link copied

Case Copied 2 September 1996 7 min read

Contents

On this page

Practice and Procedure - motion seeking leave under Order 62 rule 3 of the Federal Court Rules to assess or tax costs of a discrete interlocutory proceeding forthwith and for payment forthwith of same - tests applicable - whether circumstances take case outside the ordinary rule

Practice and Procedure - motion seeking stay of proceedings pending payment of costs - whether premature

Federal Court Rules O 62 r 3

ANTHONY VASYLI v AOL INTERNATIONAL PTY LIMITED & ANOR
No. NG 219 of 1996

CORAM:Lehane J
PLACE:Sydney
DATE:2 September 1996

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA  )
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY  )
GENERAL DIVISION  )           No. NG 219 of 1996

BETWEEN:ANTHONY VASYLI
Applicant

AND:AOL INTERNATIONAL PTY LIMITED
First Respondent
PHILLIP VASYLI
Second Respondent

CORAM:Lehane J
PLACE:Sydney
DATE:2 September 1996

MINUTE OF ORDERS

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

The respondents have leave to assess or tax their costs ordered on 19 August 1996 forthwith.

Such costs include the respondents' costs as and from the date their solicitors made a formal request for particulars of the statement of claim, being 27 March 1996.

The said costs be paid forthwith after taxation or assessment.

The costs of todays' motion are reserved.

The parties are granted liberty to apply on three days' notice.

NOTE: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA  )
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY  )
GENERAL DIVISION  )           No. NG 219 of 1996

BETWEEN:ANTHONY VASYLI
Applicant

AND:AOL INTERNATIONAL PTY LIMITED
First Respondent
PHILLIP VASYLI
Second Respondent

CORAM:Lehane J
PLACE:Sydney
DATE:2 September 1996

EXTEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

LEHANE J: On 19 August 1996 I made orders on a motion of the respondents that the applicant's statement of claim be struck out and that the applicant pay the respondents' costs of the motion. I declined to exercise the jurisdiction to dismiss the proceedings summarily and I granted the applicant leave to file and serve within 28 days from 19 August 1996 an amended statement of claim. On the application of the respondent, made at the time I delivered judgment, I granted the parties liberty to apply on three days' notice.

The respondents now apply by motion in accordance with a notice of motion filed on 27 August 1996 for leave under Order 62 rule 3 of the Federal Court Rules to assess or tax their costs forthwith and for payment forthwith of those costs after taxation or assessment.
The respondents also seek an order staying the proceedings pending payment of the whole of those costs.

The power under Order 62 rule 3 to order taxation and payment forthwith, notwithstanding that the proceedings are not concluded, is one which has been rarely used. It is well established in this Court that the usual practice is to defer the taxation and payment of costs of interlocutory proceedings until the principal proceedings have been decided. That general rule is enshrined in subrule (1) of Order 62 rule 3.

In one…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Vasyli v AOL International Pty Ltd 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: [1996] FCA 804
Decision Date: 2 September 1996

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Vasyli v AOL International Pty Ltd, the applicant, Anthony Vasyli, faced a motion from the respondents, AOL International Pty Ltd and Phillip Vasyli, seeking leave to assess and pay their costs forthwith. This motion followed an earlier decision by Lehane J, who had struck out the applicant's statement of claim and ordered the applicant to pay the respondents' costs of that motion. The respondents now sought an immediate assessment and payment of these costs, as well as a stay of the proceedings pending payment.

The central legal issue was whether the circumstances warranted an immediate assessment and payment of costs under Order 62 rule 3 of the Federal Court Rules, which typically defers such costs until the conclusion of the proceedings. The respondents argued that the applicant's failure to amend the defective statement of claim warranted immediate costs. Conversely, the applicant argued that the motion was premature, given the pending opportunity to file an amended statement of claim.

Lehane J concluded that this case warranted an exception to the ordinary rule. The court found that the costs incurred up to the point of the formal request for particulars were effectively wasted, and any continuation of the proceedings would essentially be new. Thus, the court granted the respondents' application for immediate assessment and payment of costs, while reserving the decision on the stay pending further developments in the case. The costs of the motion itself were deferred pending the outcome of the applicant's potential amended statement of claim.

Orders