Review 2 Pty Ltd v Redberry Enterprise Pty Ltd (No. 2) [2008] FCA 1805

Review 2 Pty Ltd v Redberry Enterprise Pty Ltd (No. 2) [2008] FCA 1805

Rejection of Redberry's offers of compromise and settlement by the applicants was not imprudent or unreasonable, given the new statutory regime, the uncertainties of the case, and the absence of clear guidance at the time. Accordingly, no award of indemnity costs is justified; usual party/party costs orders are made.

Parties
First Applicant/first Cross Respondent: Review 2 Pty Ltd (in liquidation) (ACN 067 634 360); Second Applicant/second Cross Respondent: Review Australia Pty Ltd (ACN 122 295 836); Respondent/cross Claimant: Redberry Enterprise Pty Ltd (ACN 093 946 260)
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 November 2008
Procedural Posture
Application and Cross Claim / Post Judgment (costs Determination)
Outcome
No award of indemnity costs; usual costs orders granted
Legal Topics
Costs, Designs Act, Settlement Offers, Offer of Compromise
Intellectual Property Civil Procedure Costs Designs Act Settlement Offers Offer of Compromise

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 3 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Review 2 Pty Ltd (in liquidation) (ACN 067 634 360)

First Applicant/first Cross Respondent

Review Australia Pty Ltd (ACN 122 295 836)

Second Applicant/second Cross Respondent

Redberry Enterprise Pty Ltd (ACN 093 946 260)

Respondent/cross Claimant

Procedural Posture

Application and Cross Claim / Post Judgment (costs Determination)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether rejection of settlement offers by the applicants was imprudent or unreasonable and attracts indemnity costs
  2. 2 Entitlement to indemnity costs under Order 23 Federal Court Rules after rejection of offer of compromise
  3. 3 Whether applicants advanced groundless contentions justifying indemnity costs

Ratio Decidendi

Rejection of Redberry's offers of compromise and settlement by the applicants was not imprudent or unreasonable, given the new statutory regime, the uncertainties of the case, and the absence of clear guidance at the time. Accordingly, no award of indemnity costs is justified; usual party/party costs orders are made.

Court Disposition

No award of indemnity costs; usual costs orders granted

Orders

  • The applicants pay the respondent's costs of the application.
  • The cross-claimant pay the cross-respondents' costs of the cross-claim.