Firebird Global Master Fund II Ltd v Republic of Nauru [No 2] [2015] HCA 53
Monday 4 January 2016 @ 10.35 a.m. | Trade & Commerce
On 23 December 2015, the High Court delivered judgment in Firebird Global Master Fund II Ltd v Republic of Nauru [No 2][2015] HCA 53. Following on from the previous case, this was a costs application focused on apportionment of costs.
Background to the Case
As stated in the previous TimeBase article, this case was dismissed and the High Court unanimously held that the proceedings for registration of the foreign judgment were proceedings to which s 9 of the Foreign States Immunities Act applied so that Nauru was immune from the jurisdiction of Australian courts, subject to the exceptions for which the Foreign States Immunities Act provides. There was no inconsistency in the operation of the two statutes.
By a majority, the Court also held that there was no requirement that the summons for registration of the foreign judgment under the Foreign Judgments Act be served on Nauru before the foreign judgment was registered.
Determination of the Court in the Current Case
The High Court determined in its short judgment on 23 December 2015, relating to costs, that "costs follow the event" and, as such, Firebird should pay the costs of the respondent on appeal.
In particular (at paragraph [6]):
"the preferable approach in this case is the one usually taken, that costs should follow the outcome of the appeal. This is not a case where it may be said that the event of success is contestable, by reference to how separate issues have been determined. There are no special circumstances to warrant a departure from the general rule, and good reasons not to encourage applications regarding costs on an issue-by-issue basis, involving apportionments based on degrees of difficulty of issues, time taken to argue them and the like."
TimeBase is an independent, privately owned Australian legal publisher specialising in the online delivery of accurate, comprehensive and innovative legislation research tools including LawOne and unique Point-in-Time Products.
Sources:
Firebird Global Master Fund II Ltd v Republic of Nauru [No 2][2015] HCA 53 (23 December 2015)
Firebird Global Master Fund II Ltd v Republic of Nauru [2015] HCA 43 (2 December 2015)
