Background
Jadwan Pty Ltd sought extensions of time under the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) to review two costs decisions made by a National Judicial Registrar. The underlying litigation had begun in the Supreme Court of Tasmania in 2003, was transferred to the Federal Court in 2016, and was dismissed in 2018 with Jadwan ordered to pay the respondents’ costs as assessed or agreed. Jadwan’s appeal and subsequent application for special leave were unsuccessful.
In the first challenged decision, made in 2024, the Registrar refused Jadwan’s request to fix the fourth respondent’s costs at a nominal $100 and decided instead to determine an “other sum” under r 40.15(1)(b). In the second decision, made on 9 September 2025, the Registrar fixed that sum at $644,449.95 after reducing claimed professional fees, counsel fees, and disbursements. Jadwan applied for review approximately 15 months late in relation to the 2024 decision and about one month late in relation to the 2025 decision.
The Court’s Holding
Justice Dowling refused both extensions. The Court held that Jadwan had not adequately explained either delay. Jadwan had legal representation throughout, had previously been involved in an unsuccessful application to extend the same 21-day review period in related litigation, and received Registrar orders expressly noting the right to review and the applicable deadline. The Court rejected Jadwan’s contention that the 2024 ruling was not yet reviewable: read with the Registrar’s reasons, the 2024 orders had rejected the requested nominal sum and therefore could have been reviewed at that time.
The proposed reviews also lacked sufficient merit. Rule 40.15 did not require the Registrar to order a formal taxation or prevent her from using lump-sum costs principles as a guide when fixing an “other sum.” Nor did it require a nominal award whenever the evidence was considered insufficient. As to the 2025 quantum decision, the Court found insufficient merit in Jadwan’s criticisms of the costs evidence and assessment methodology to justify replacing $644,449.95 with the proposed range of $270,000 to $350,000. Any prejudice to the fourth respondent was modest or limited, but it weighed against extensions alongside the inadequate explanations and weak merits. The interlocutory application was dismissed, with Jadwan ordered to pay the fourth respondent’s costs.
Key Takeaways
- An application to review a Federal Court Registrar’s exercise of delegated power ordinarily must be filed within 21 days under r 3.11.
- A party seeking more time must provide a sufficient explanation for the delay and show that the proposed de novo review has enough merit to justify reconsideration; prejudice is also relevant.
- When fixing an “other sum” under r 40.15(1)(b), a Registrar may use lump-sum assessment principles as a guide because the rule does not prescribe or limit the method of fixing that sum.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that a represented party cannot safely wait for the final quantification of costs before challenging an earlier ruling that has already rejected a nominal award or selected the basis on which costs will be determined. Reasons and orders may be read together to identify the reviewable exercise of power.
It also confirms the breadth of the Registrar’s procedural discretion under r 40.15. Minor asserted discrepancies in costs evidence, without a persuasive showing that they could support the substantially lower amount sought on review, will not ordinarily establish sufficient merit for an extension of time.