Hansen Beverage Company v Bickfords (Australia) Pty Ltd (No 2) [2008] FCA 601

Hansen Beverage Company v Bickfords (Australia) Pty Ltd (No 2) [2008] FCA 601

Because both Hansen and Bickfords were unsuccessful on significant competing claims concerning sufficient reputation in Australia, and Hansen's evidence was substantially relevant to both its claim and its defence to the cross-claim, a fair and practical approach was to make no order as to costs. The Court was not satisfied that Bickfords' objections or conduct justified a separate adverse costs order, and no contrary order was made under O 62 r 24.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 May 2008
Procedural Posture
Costs Determination After Dismissal of Claim and Cross Claim / Reasons for Judgment on Costs
Outcome
No order as to costs.
Legal Topics
['costs Follow the Event' 'issues Based Costs Apportionment' 'overlapping Evidence on Claim and Cross Claim' 'notice Disputing Facts' 'taxation of Costs']
['costs' 'civil Procedure'] ['costs Follow the Event' 'issues Based Costs Apportionment' 'overlapping Evidence on Claim and Cross Claim' 'notice Disputing Facts' 'taxation of 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

Costs Determination After Dismissal of Claim and Cross Claim / Reasons for Judgment on Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether costs should follow the event after both the applicant's claim and the respondents' cross-claim were dismissed." 'Whether an issues-based or practical apportionment of costs should be made given overlapping evidence relevant to both the claim and cross-claim.' "Whether Bickfords' unsuccessful objections to evidence or failure to admit facts justified a costs order in favour of Hansen."]

Ratio Decidendi

Because both Hansen and Bickfords were unsuccessful on significant competing claims concerning sufficient reputation in Australia, and Hansen's evidence was substantially relevant to both its claim and its defence to the cross-claim, a fair and practical approach was to make no order as to costs. The Court was not satisfied that Bickfords' objections or conduct justified a separate adverse costs order, and no contrary order was made under O 62 r 24.

Court Disposition

No order as to costs.

Orders

  • ['There be no order as to costs.']