Anema E Core Pty Ltd v Aromas Pty Ltd [1999] FCA 215

Anema E Core Pty Ltd v Aromas Pty Ltd [1999] FCA 215

A no-costs order would not properly reflect the applicants' success in establishing a s 52 contravention, but an order giving the applicants two-thirds of their costs would be too generous given their failures, including the fraud allegations, the claim for relief akin to rescission, trading losses, and claims against the natural respondents. The appropriate exercise of the costs discretion was for the first and second respondents to pay one-half of the applicants' costs of the action, for the applicants to pay the second respondent's costs of the cross-claim, and for no order as to costs between the applicants and the third to sixth respondents.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 March 1999
Procedural Posture
Reasons for Judgment on Costs / Costs Following Judgment in Proceedings
Outcome
Costs orders made following judgment.
Legal Topics
['costs Discretion' 'partial Success' 'trade Practices Act 1974 S 52' 'federal Court Costs Orders' 'cross Claim Costs']
['civil Procedure' 'costs' 'trade Practices'] ['costs Discretion' 'partial Success' 'trade Practices Act 1974 S 52' 'federal Court Costs Orders' 'cross Claim 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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Reasons for Judgment on Costs / Costs Following Judgment in Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['What costs orders should be made after the applicants succeeded in establishing a contravention of s 52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 but failed on other claims and relief.' 'Whether there should be no order as to costs, a reduced costs order in favour of the applicants, costs on the cross-claim, and no order for costs between the applicants and the third to sixth respondents.']

Ratio Decidendi

A no-costs order would not properly reflect the applicants' success in establishing a s 52 contravention, but an order giving the applicants two-thirds of their costs would be too generous given their failures, including the fraud allegations, the claim for relief akin to rescission, trading losses, and claims against the natural respondents. The appropriate exercise of the costs discretion was for the first and second respondents to pay one-half of the applicants' costs of the action, for the applicants to pay the second respondent's costs of the cross-claim, and for no order as to costs between the applicants and the third to sixth respondents.

Court Disposition

Costs orders made following judgment.

Orders

  • ['Notwithstanding the provisions of O 62 r 36A, the first and second respondent pay one-half of the costs of the applicants of and incidental to the action to be taxed;' 'The applicants pay the costs of the second respondent on the cross-claim, to be taxed;' 'As between the applicants and the third to sixth...