Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Limited (ACN 001 660 715) v D.A.P. Services (Kempsey) Pty Limited (in liquidation) (ACN 055 803 542) (No. 2) [2007] FCAFC 90

Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Limited (ACN 001 660 715) v D.A.P. Services (Kempsey) Pty Limited (in liquidation) (ACN 055 803 542) (No. 2) [2007] FCAFC 90

The first instance costs orders were not disturbed because Aristocrat had sufficient success on the appeal to maintain them. No costs order was made against the corporate respondent in liquidation because Aristocrat did not seek the usual costs order against it. Taking an overall view, Mr and Mrs Parry were jointly represented, their cross-appeal failed, and their overall loss had to be balanced against Aristocrat not being entirely successful; accordingly they were ordered to pay 70% of the appellants' costs of the appeal, with the costs of the cross-appeal to be costs in the appeal.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 June 2007
Procedural Posture
Appeal and Cross Appeal / Costs Orders Following Appeal
Outcome
The second and third respondents were ordered to pay 70% of the appellants' costs of the appeal, the cross-appeal was dismissed, and the costs of the cross-appeal were ordered to be costs in the appeal.
Legal Topics
['costs' 'costs on Appeal' 'cross Appeal' 'company in Liquidation']
['civil Procedure'] ['costs' 'costs on Appeal' 'cross Appeal' 'company in Liquidation']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Appeal and Cross Appeal / Costs Orders Following Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the costs orders made at first instance should be disturbed.' 'What costs order should be made on the appeal against the corporate respondent in liquidation.' "What proportion of the appellants' costs of the appeal should be paid by the second and third respondents." 'What costs order should be made for the cross-appeal.']

Ratio Decidendi

The first instance costs orders were not disturbed because Aristocrat had sufficient success on the appeal to maintain them. No costs order was made against the corporate respondent in liquidation because Aristocrat did not seek the usual costs order against it. Taking an overall view, Mr and Mrs Parry were jointly represented, their cross-appeal failed, and their overall loss had to be balanced against Aristocrat not being entirely successful; accordingly they were ordered to pay 70% of the appellants' costs of the appeal, with the costs of the cross-appeal to be costs in the appeal.

Court Disposition

The second and third respondents were ordered to pay 70% of the appellants' costs of the appeal, the cross-appeal was dismissed, and the costs of the cross-appeal were ordered to be costs in the appeal.

Orders

  • ["The second and third respondents pay 70% of the appellants' costs of the appeal." 'The cross-appeal is dismissed.' 'The costs of the cross-appeal to be costs in the appeal.']