Domino's Pizza Enterprises Limited v Precision Tracking Pty Ltd (No 7) [2018] FCA 1160

Domino's Pizza Enterprises Limited v Precision Tracking Pty Ltd (No 7) [2018] FCA 1160

Because the parties had mixed success on Domino's interlocutory application, leaving aside the existing order for costs thrown away by amendments, each party should bear its or his own costs of that application. The respondents' application for a different costs order should also be included in that disposition because no different treatment of the costs argument was warranted.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 August 2018
Procedural Posture
Intellectual Property Patents Proceeding; Costs of Interlocutory Application / Determined on the Papers After Respondents Gave Notice Seeking a Different Costs Order
Outcome
Each party to bear its or his own costs of the interlocutory application filed on 30 May 2018, including the costs of the respondents' application for an order that the applicant pay the respondents' costs of the interlocutory application.
Legal Topics
['costs' 'interlocutory Application' 'amendment of Pleadings' 'discovery']
['civil Procedure' 'intellectual Property' 'patents'] ['costs' 'interlocutory Application' 'amendment of Pleadings' 'discovery']

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

Intellectual Property Patents Proceeding; Costs of Interlocutory Application / Determined on the Papers After Respondents Gave Notice Seeking a Different Costs Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Court should make a costs order different from each party bearing its or his own costs of the interlocutory application filed on 30 May 2018.' "Whether the costs of the respondents' application for an order that the applicant pay the respondents' costs should be dealt with as part of the costs of the interlocutory application."]

Ratio Decidendi

Because the parties had mixed success on Domino's interlocutory application, leaving aside the existing order for costs thrown away by amendments, each party should bear its or his own costs of that application. The respondents' application for a different costs order should also be included in that disposition because no different treatment of the costs argument was warranted.

Court Disposition

Each party to bear its or his own costs of the interlocutory application filed on 30 May 2018, including the costs of the respondents' application for an order that the applicant pay the respondents' costs of the interlocutory application.

Orders

  • ['Each party bear its or his own costs of the interlocutory application filed on 30 May 2018.' "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."]