Wright Rubber Products Pty Ltd v Bayer AG (No 2) [2010] FCAFC 107

Wright Rubber Products Pty Ltd v Bayer AG (No 2) [2010] FCAFC 107

The applicant's ordinary entitlement to costs of the application for leave and the appeal was not compromised by the Full Court's conclusion that only two paragraphs of the Amended Statement of Claim should have been struck out. For the notices of motion before the primary Judge, the respondents' limited success justified reducing the applicant's costs entitlement, but not denying it altogether; justice required the respondents to pay three-quarters of the applicant's costs of those motions.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 September 2010
Procedural Posture
Appeal From the Federal Court of Australia / Costs Orders After Application for Leave to Appeal Granted and Appeal Allowed
Outcome
The respondents were ordered to pay the applicant's costs of the application and appeal, and three-quarters of the applicant's costs of the respondents' notices of motion determined by the primary Judge on 13 November 2009.
Legal Topics
['costs of Appeal' 'costs of Application for Leave to Appeal' 'costs of Notices of Motion' 'strike Out of Amended Statement of Claim' 'partial Success']
['civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['costs of Appeal' 'costs of Application for Leave to Appeal' 'costs of Notices of Motion' 'strike Out of Amended Statement of Claim' 'partial Success']

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

Appeal From the Federal Court of Australia / Costs Orders After Application for Leave to Appeal Granted and Appeal Allowed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicant should receive its costs of the application for leave to appeal and of the appeal despite the Full Court striking out paras 13 and 36 of the Amended Statement of Claim.' "What costs order should be made in relation to the respondents' notices of motion before the primary Judge seeking to strike out the Amended Statement of Claim."]

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant's ordinary entitlement to costs of the application for leave and the appeal was not compromised by the Full Court's conclusion that only two paragraphs of the Amended Statement of Claim should have been struck out. For the notices of motion before the primary Judge, the respondents' limited success justified reducing the applicant's costs entitlement, but not denying it altogether; justice required the respondents to pay three-quarters of the applicant's costs of those motions.

Court Disposition

The respondents were ordered to pay the applicant's costs of the application and appeal, and three-quarters of the applicant's costs of the respondents' notices of motion determined by the primary Judge on 13 November 2009.

Orders

  • ["The respondents pay the applicant's costs of the application and of the appeal." "The respondent pay three-quarters of the applicant's costs of the respondents' notices of motion which were determined by the primary Judge in his orders made on 13 November 2009."]