Telstra Corporation Limited v Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance Australia Limited [2003] FCA 979

Telstra Corporation Limited v Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance Australia Limited [2003] FCA 979

Although the applicants did not succeed on all claims, there was substantial factual overlap between their successful and unsuccessful claims. The applicants did not act unreasonably in prosecuting their claims. Therefore, the respondents should pay 60 per cent of the applicants’ costs, rather than costs being apportioned strictly by issue.

Parties
First Applicant: Telstra Corporation Limited; Second Applicant: Sensis Pty Ltd (formerly Pacific Access Pty Ltd); First Respondent: Royal and Sun Alliance Insurance Australia Limited; Second Respondent: Wilson Everard Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 September 2003
Procedural Posture
Costs Decision / Post Judgment
Outcome
Respondents ordered to pay 60 per cent of the applicants' taxed costs of and incidental to the proceeding.
Legal Topics
Costs Apportionment, Discretionary Costs Orders, Overlapping Issues and Costs
Practice and Procedure Costs Apportionment Discretionary Costs Orders Overlapping Issues and Costs

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Telstra Corporation Limited

First Applicant

Sensis Pty Ltd (formerly Pacific Access Pty Ltd)

Second Applicant

Royal and Sun Alliance Insurance Australia Limited

First Respondent

Wilson Everard Pty Ltd

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Costs Decision / Post Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether costs should be apportioned on the basis of how the issues in the litigation were determined

Ratio Decidendi

Although the applicants did not succeed on all claims, there was substantial factual overlap between their successful and unsuccessful claims. The applicants did not act unreasonably in prosecuting their claims. Therefore, the respondents should pay 60 per cent of the applicants’ costs, rather than costs being apportioned strictly by issue.

Court Disposition

Respondents ordered to pay 60 per cent of the applicants' taxed costs of and incidental to the proceeding.

Orders

  • The respondents pay 60 per cent of the applicants' taxed costs of and incidental to this proceeding.