Seafolly Pty Ltd v Madden (No 5) [2014] FCA 1413

Seafolly Pty Ltd v Madden (No 5) [2014] FCA 1413

Ms Madden should pay 85% of Seafolly's costs of the proceeding, reflecting the parties' relative success on significant issues after appeal; apportionment or indemnity costs not appropriate because the claims were based on the same factual substratum, and the Calderbank offer's rejection was neither imprudent nor unreasonable. Costs of the stay application should be costs in the cause. No order for payment of judgment interest is made.

Parties
Applicant/cross Respondent: Seafolly Pty Ltd; Respondent/cross Claimant: Leah Madden
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 December 2014
Procedural Posture
Civil / Costs Determination After Appeal and Remittal
Outcome
Ms Madden ordered to pay 85% of Seafolly's costs of the proceeding; costs of interlocutory application to be costs in the cause; no order for indemnity costs; no order for judgment interest.
Legal Topics
Costs, Misleading and Deceptive Conduct, Copyright, Injurious Falsehood, Defamation, Appeals, Apportionment of Costs
Commercial Law Intellectual Property Law Consumer Law Costs Misleading and Deceptive Conduct Copyright Injurious Falsehood Defamation +2 more

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Seafolly Pty Ltd

Applicant/cross Respondent

Leah Madden

Respondent/cross Claimant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Costs Determination After Appeal and Remittal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Appropriate apportionment of costs following mixed success at trial and on appeal
  2. 2 Whether costs should be awarded on an indemnity basis due to a Calderbank offer
  3. 3 Appropriate orders regarding costs of interlocutory applications

Ratio Decidendi

Ms Madden should pay 85% of Seafolly's costs of the proceeding, reflecting the parties' relative success on significant issues after appeal; apportionment or indemnity costs not appropriate because the claims were based on the same factual substratum, and the Calderbank offer's rejection was neither imprudent nor unreasonable. Costs of the stay application should be costs in the cause. No order for payment of judgment interest is made.

Court Disposition

Ms Madden ordered to pay 85% of Seafolly's costs of the proceeding; costs of interlocutory application to be costs in the cause; no order for indemnity costs; no order for judgment interest.

Orders

  • The respondent pay 85% of the applicant's costs of the proceeding.
  • The costs of the respondent's interlocutory application filed on 26 February 2013 be costs in the cause.