VadeLab
OtherFederal Court of Australia·

Federal Court Orders Each Party to Bear Own Costs for Interlocutory Application

Case No. [2018] FCA 1160 · Justice Robertson

📌 In brief

In this Federal Court case, the judge decided that each party must pay their own legal fees after considering the outcome of an earlier interlocutory application. The decision reflects a balance between the success and failure of claims made by both sides.

⚖️ Legal holding

In cases of mixed success, the court may order each party to bear its own costs unless there are specific circumstances warranting a different disposition.

Topics

costsinterlocutory applications

📖 Technical summary

The court ruled on costs for an interlocutory application, determining that each party bears their own costs.

📜 Headnote Official document

The court ruled on costs for an interlocutory application, determining that each party bears their own costs due to the mixed success of both parties in the proceedings.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Other

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

[APPELLANT] [COMPANY] v [APPELLANT] (No 7) [2018] FCA 1160 File number: NSD 516 of 2016

Judge: ROBERTSON J

Date of judgment: 8 August 2018

Date of hearing: Determined on the papers

Date of last submissions: 1 August 2018

Registry: New South Wales

Division: General Division

National Practice Area: Intellectual Property

Sub-area: Patents and associated Statutes

Category: No Catchwords

Number of paragraphs: 9

Counsel for the Applicant/First Cross-Respondent to the First Cross-Claim: [NAME] [COUNSEL] [NAME] with [NAME] [COUNSEL] [NAME]

Solicitor for the Applicant/ First Cross-Respondent to the First Cross-Claim: [NAME]

Counsel for the Respondents/ Cross-Claimant of the First Cross-Claim/Cross-Respondent to the Second Cross-Claim: [NAME] [COUNSEL] [NAME] with Dr [COUNSEL]

Solicitor for the Respondents/Cross-Claimant of the First Cross-Claim/Cross-Respondent to the Second Cross-Claim: [NAME]

Counsel for the Second Cross-Respondent to the First Cross-Claim/Cross Claimant of the Second Cross-Claim: [NAME] [COUNSEL]

Solicitor for the Second Cross-Respondent to the First Cross-Claim/Cross Claimant of the Second Cross-Claim: [APPELLANT] 516 of 2016

BETWEEN: [APPELLANT]) Applicant

AND: [COMPANY] (ACN 133 616 369) First Respondent

[NAME] Respondent

[NAME] (and others named in the Schedule) Third Respondent

AND BETWEEN: [COMPANY] (ACN 133 616 369) Cross-Claimant of the First Cross-Claim

AND: [APPELLANT] [COMPANY] (and another named in the Schedule) First Cross-Respondent to the First Cross-Claim

AND BETWEEN: [COMPANY] (ACN 123 981 457) Cross-Claimant of the Second Cross-Claim

AND: [COMPANY] (ACN 133 616 369) Cross-Respondent to the Second Cross-Claim

JUDGE: ROBERTSON J DATE OF ORDER: 8 AUGUST 2018

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. Each party bear its or his own costs of the interlocutory application filed on 30 May 2018. 2. Those costs are to include the costs of the respondents' application for an order that the applicant pay the respondents' costs of the interlocutory application. Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

ROBERTSON J: 1 On 19 June 2018 I made orders and gave reasons in relation to an interlocutory application brought by [APPELLANT] to amend its pleadings and for further discovery: [APPELLANT] [COMPANY] v [APPELLANT] (No 6) [2018] FCA 910. 2 At [39] of those reasons, I said: I will, if necessary, hear the parties in relation to costs. I indicate that my present provisional view is that, in light of the mixed success of the parties on [APPELLANT] interlocutory application, there should be no order as to costs of the interlocutory application except that [APPELLANT] should pay [NAME]'s costs, if any, thrown away by reason of the amendments to the pleadings which I have allowed. 3 Orders 8 and 9 were in the following form:

8. Subject to order 9, each party bear its or his own costs of the interlocutory application fled on 30 May 2018.

9. If any of the parties wishes to contend for a different costs order, they are to notify [NAME] and the other parties and thereafter directions will be made for the exchange of short written submissions and the determination of that issue on the papers. 4 On 24 July 2018, the respondents gave notice pursuant to order 9 that they wished to contend for a different costs order to that in order 8. 5 Having considered the respondents' submissions on costs dated 25 July 2018 and [APPELLANT] submissions in answer dated 1 August 2018, including the correspondence referred to at [5.1] of those submissions in answer, I have concluded that the parties had mixed success on [APPELLANT] interlocutory application, leaving aside order 7 made on 19 June 2018 that the applicant was to pay the respondents' costs thrown away, if any, by reason of the amendments I did allow. Order 7 was not the subject of leave to contend for a costs order different to the order I indicated provisionally I would make. 6 The order I make is: Each party bear its or his own costs of the interlocutory application filed on 30 May 2018. 7 This leaves for consideration the disposition of the parties' costs of the application by the respondents for their costs. 8 In my opinion the costs of the application for a costs order should form part of the disposition of the costs of the interlocutory application and accordingly each party should bear its or his own costs in that respect. The views I provisionally expressed were just that, provisional, and I do not consider that any different disposition of the argument about costs is warranted. 9 The orders that I make therefore are:

1. Each party bear its or his own costs of the interlocutory application filed on 30 May 2018.

2. Those costs are to include the costs of the respondents' application for an order that the applicant pay the respondents' costs of the interlocutory application. I certify that the preceding nine (9) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Robertson.

Associate: Dated: 8 August 2018

SCHEDULE OF PARTIES NSD 516 of 2016

Respondents Fourth Respondent: [redacted] Respondent: [redacted] Second Cross-Respondent to the First [RESPONDENT] [COMPANY] (ACN 123 981 457)

📊 How courts decide similar cases

Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:

A snapshot of this collection — not a prediction of your case's outcome.

⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this

✅ Tends to be accepted

  • A party found liable in a penalty proceeding must generally pay the applicant's costs of the case as brought against them.
  • A court may approve the payment of administration costs when such payments are fair and reasonable in relation to claims made by group members under a settlement.
  • A respondent is not liable for trade mark infringement if there is no deceptive similarity or intention to mislead, even if the representation about product weight is inaccurate.
  • A respondent cannot set aside a subpoena if it is relevant and does not cause undue prejudice.
  • A court may transfer a proceeding to the Federal Circuit Court if it is less expensive, more convenient, and involves questions of lesser importance.

❌ Tends to be rejected

  • A party seeking an amendment to a patent application may be required to pay the costs of that application, regardless of the outcome.
  • A stay of proceedings may be granted if adequate security is provided to protect the respondent's interests.
  • The hypothetical reasonable observer might reasonably apprehend that a judge may not bring an impartial mind to considering circumstances relevant to proposed amendments.

Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The court ruled that each party should bear its own costs for the interlocutory application.

Who was involved?

Two parties were involved in an interlocutory application, with one seeking to amend pleadings and obtain further discovery.

How did the court decide, and why?

The judge considered that both sides had mixed success on their claims and therefore ordered each party to bear its own costs.

Which laws or rules were applied?

No specific laws were cited as this was a procedural decision regarding costs.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The court focused on the mixed success of both parties in determining cost allocation.

Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?

Neither party fully won or lost, as each bore their own costs.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Parties should expect to bear their own legal fees if they have mixed success on an interlocutory application.

What evidence or documents mattered?

The court reviewed the submissions and correspondence regarding the interlocutory application.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Decisions about costs can sometimes be appealed, but it depends on the specific circumstances.

Is it worth getting a solicitor for a case like this?

It is advisable to seek legal advice from a qualified solicitor for such matters.

Official source: Federal Court of Australia headnote and full judgment reproduced from the court's public records. View on the official source ↗Summary, holding, technical summary and questions: produced by Artificial Intelligence based on the official headnote and judgment. These are VadeLab’s own material and are not the work of the Court.This decision was issued by the Federal Court of Australia and is reproduced from its published records. VadeLab is not affiliated with, and this page is not endorsed by, that court or tribunal.