Directed Electronics OE Pty Ltd v OE Solutions Pty Ltd (No 7) [2020] FCA 206

Directed Electronics OE Pty Ltd v OE Solutions Pty Ltd (No 7) [2020] FCA 206

Directed Electronics OE Pty Ltd was substantially successful in its application concerning the re-determination of privilege claims; however, as the Meneses parties achieved some success and acted appropriately after remitter in some respects, an apportionment of costs (80% payable by the first and sixth respondents) is appropriate. Given both sides bore responsibility for the conduct and outcome of the primary judgment, no order as to costs was made in relation to that stage.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 February 2020
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application Within Commercial/corporate Civil Proceeding / Costs Determination After Appellate Remitter and Re Determination of Privilege Claims
Outcome
Orders as to costs only (no merits or substantive determination made)
Legal Topics
['costs' 'privilege (self Incrimination, Self Exposure to Penalty)' 'appeals and Remitter' 'discovery and Production of Documents']
['civil Procedure' 'commercial Law'] ['costs' 'privilege (self Incrimination, Self Exposure to Penalty)' 'appeals and Remitter' 'discovery and Production of Documents']

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

Interlocutory Application Within Commercial/corporate Civil Proceeding / Costs Determination After Appellate Remitter and Re Determination of Privilege Claims

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Appropriate costs order following re-determination of privilege claims after Full Court remitter' 'Proper apportionment of costs where there is mixed success' 'Consequences of party conduct on costs in interlocutory applications']

Ratio Decidendi

Directed Electronics OE Pty Ltd was substantially successful in its application concerning the re-determination of privilege claims; however, as the Meneses parties achieved some success and acted appropriately after remitter in some respects, an apportionment of costs (80% payable by the first and sixth respondents) is appropriate. Given both sides bore responsibility for the conduct and outcome of the primary judgment, no order as to costs was made in relation to that stage.

Court Disposition

Orders as to costs only (no merits or substantive determination made)

Orders

  • ["No order as to costs in respect of the application resulting in the Order of Justice O'Callaghan dated 6 March 2019 (the primary judgment)." "First and sixth respondents to pay 80% of the applicant's costs of and incidental to the applications resulting in the Order of Justice Anderson dated 17 February 2020, with...