//
[2005] FMCA 418
General information, not legal advice.
Federal Magistrates Court of Australia
2005-03-11
Original judgment source is linked above.
(1)
The applicant is to pay the respondent's costs of and incidental to the application, including any reserved costs, fixed by reference to the Federal Magistrates Court scale of costs.
(2)
Parties have liberty to apply for further orders or directions on five days notice.
The respondents in this matter seek an order for costs in consequence of the dismissal of the application.[1] On the basis of the judgment I wrote, the case in my view purely turned on its facts and I found that the facts were unproven. I think in that circumstance, costs should follow the event. Nothing has been put to me to suggest that costs should be awarded on anything other than the usual basis. The applicant did not succeed on any element of her claims so I do not see any basis for an apportionment of costs.
I am not told of any offers that need to be taken into account and I am not told that anybody has conducted the proceedings improperly so there would not be a basis for indemnity costs. It seems to me that costs should follow the event and in accordance with the rules of the court, the event based cost scale in schedule 1 of the (Cth) would apply.
I will make an order that the applicant pay the respondent's costs of and incidental to the application, including any reserved costs, fixed by reference to the Federal Magistrates Court scale of costs.
There is no provision for a taxation of costs on the Federal Magistrates Court scale. It is a simple arithmetical exercise. If for some reason the parties cannot agree on how costs should be calculated, the matter can be brought back before me. I will give the parties liberty to apply on five days notice.
I certify that the preceding four (4) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Driver FM
[1] Zhang v Kanellos & Anor [2005] FMCA 111
Zhang
Kanellos & Anor