RB (Hygiene Home) Australia Pty Ltd v Proctor & Gamble Australia Pty Limited (No 3) [2023] FCA 1650

RB (Hygiene Home) Australia Pty Ltd v Proctor & Gamble Australia Pty Limited (No 3) [2023] FCA 1650

A discount of 30% to RB's recoverable costs is appropriate due to its lack of success on parts of its case, particularly the revised packaging issue. PG is to pay 70% of RB's costs of the application, and RB is to pay PG's costs of the cross-claim. Previous costs orders relating to interlocutory applications and product testing remain in place.

Parties
Applicant / Cross Respondent: RB (Hygiene Home) Australia Pty Ltd; Respondent / Cross Claimant: Proctor & Gamble Australia Pty Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 December 2023
Procedural Posture
Costs Determination Following Declarations and Injunctions in Commercial Matter / Post Trial, Costs Phase
Outcome
Costs awarded as set out in orders: respondent to pay 70% of applicant's costs of the application; cross-respondent to pay cross-claimant's costs of cross-claim.
Legal Topics
Costs, Injunctions, Australian Consumer Law, Offers of Compromise
Commercial Law Consumer Law Civil Procedure Costs Injunctions Australian Consumer Law Offers 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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

RB (Hygiene Home) Australia Pty Ltd

Applicant / Cross Respondent

Proctor & Gamble Australia Pty Limited

Respondent / Cross Claimant

Procedural Posture

Costs Determination Following Declarations and Injunctions in Commercial Matter / Post Trial, Costs Phase

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the appropriate order for costs following partial success on the application and cross-claim?
  2. 2 Should the respondent's offer of compromise affect the costs order?
  3. 3 Should there be a discount applied to the applicant's recoverable costs due to partial success?

Ratio Decidendi

A discount of 30% to RB's recoverable costs is appropriate due to its lack of success on parts of its case, particularly the revised packaging issue. PG is to pay 70% of RB's costs of the application, and RB is to pay PG's costs of the cross-claim. Previous costs orders relating to interlocutory applications and product testing remain in place.

Court Disposition

Costs awarded as set out in orders: respondent to pay 70% of applicant's costs of the application; cross-respondent to pay cross-claimant's costs of cross-claim.

Orders

  • The respondent pay 70% of the applicant's costs of the application, subject to operation of existing costs orders.
  • The cross-respondent pay the cross-claimant's costs of the cross-claim.