Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Ltd v Global Gaming Supplies Pty Ltd (No 2) [2013] FCA 1253

Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Ltd v Global Gaming Supplies Pty Ltd (No 2) [2013] FCA 1253

While Mr Allam succeeded on some issues, he was not successful in the substantial copyright case. The Aristocrat Companies should have their costs subject to apportionment—35% payable by Mr Allam (excluding the remittal), reflecting the overall result and factual findings. The remitter was limited in scope and Mr Allam succeeded on trade mark infringement; therefore, the Aristocrat Companies should pay his costs for the remitter.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 November 2013
Procedural Posture
Costs Order Following Mixed Judgments in Intellectual Property Proceeding / Post Judgment; Determination of Costs
Outcome
Costs apportioned according to success and failure; specific orders made as to payment between parties.
Legal Topics
['apportionment of Costs' 'successful and Unsuccessful Parties' 'remittal Proceedings']
['costs' 'civil Procedure'] ['apportionment of Costs' 'successful and Unsuccessful Parties' 'remittal Proceedings']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Costs Order Following Mixed Judgments in Intellectual Property Proceeding / Post Judgment; Determination of Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Who should be treated as the successful party for the purposes of costs' 'Appropriate apportionment of costs following mixed results' 'Variation of costs orders with respect to Tonita Enterprises Pty Ltd']

Ratio Decidendi

While Mr Allam succeeded on some issues, he was not successful in the substantial copyright case. The Aristocrat Companies should have their costs subject to apportionment—35% payable by Mr Allam (excluding the remittal), reflecting the overall result and factual findings. The remitter was limited in scope and Mr Allam succeeded on trade mark infringement; therefore, the Aristocrat Companies should pay his costs for the remitter.

Court Disposition

Costs apportioned according to success and failure; specific orders made as to payment between parties.

Orders

  • ['The sixth respondent (Riad Allam) pay 35% of the costs of the applicants in respect of the proceedings, other than the remittal proceedings.' "The applicants pay the sixth respondent's costs of the remittal proceedings."]