National Auto Glass Supplies (Australia) Pty Limited v Nielsen & Moller Autoglass (NSW) Pty Limited (No 9) [2007] FCA 1826

National Auto Glass Supplies (Australia) Pty Limited v Nielsen & Moller Autoglass (NSW) Pty Limited (No 9) [2007] FCA 1826

Given that all three applicants were not wholly successful but the second and third applicants succeeded against certain respondents on limited defamation claims and both sides achieved substantial success on various issues, the appropriate order is that there be no order as to costs generally, except that the applicants must pay respondents' costs thrown away by amendments to pleadings on specified dates.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 November 2007
Procedural Posture
Civil / Post Trial (costs Determination After Judgment)
Outcome
No order as to costs for the proceedings generally except that applicants are to pay respondents' costs thrown away by specified amendments to pleading.
Legal Topics
['costs' 'misleading and Deceptive Conduct' 'defamation' 'settlement Offers']
['defamation Law' 'competition and Consumer Law' 'civil Procedure'] ['costs' 'misleading and Deceptive Conduct' 'defamation' 'settlement Offers']

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

Civil / Post Trial (costs Determination After Judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicants should be awarded costs for their partial success in defamation claims' 'Whether respondents are entitled to costs thrown away by amendments to pleadings' 'Appropriate apportionment of costs given mixed outcome on claims']

Ratio Decidendi

Given that all three applicants were not wholly successful but the second and third applicants succeeded against certain respondents on limited defamation claims and both sides achieved substantial success on various issues, the appropriate order is that there be no order as to costs generally, except that the applicants must pay respondents' costs thrown away by amendments to pleadings on specified dates.

Court Disposition

No order as to costs for the proceedings generally except that applicants are to pay respondents' costs thrown away by specified amendments to pleading.

Orders

  • ["The applicants pay the respondents' costs thrown away by the filing of the Amended Statement of Claim on 21 July 2006." "The applicants pay the respondents' costs thrown away by the filing of the Second Further Amended Application and Second Further Amended Statement of Claim on 25 August 2006." 'There be no order...