Taylor v Killer Queen, LLC (No 3) [2021] FCA 912

Taylor v Killer Queen, LLC (No 3) [2021] FCA 912

The Respondents were otherwise successful on the interlocutory application, and neither the limited waiver concessions nor the Applicant's misunderstanding of paragraph 19 materially affected the time, cost, evidence or argument required for the application. There was therefore no basis to reduce the Respondents' costs recovery by 25%, and the ordinary rule that costs follow the event applied.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 August 2021
Procedural Posture
Costs of Interlocutory Application in Intellectual Property Trade Marks Proceeding / Costs Determination Following the Respondents' Success in Resisting the Applicant's Interlocutory Challenge to Claims of Privilege
Outcome
The Applicant was ordered to pay the Respondents' costs of the Interlocutory Application filed 15 April 2021, with no 25% reduction.
Legal Topics
['costs of Interlocutory Application' 'privilege' 'waiver of Privilege' 'issue Waiver' 'costs Follow the Event']
['intellectual Property' 'trade Marks' 'costs'] ['costs of Interlocutory Application' 'privilege' 'waiver of Privilege' 'issue Waiver' 'costs Follow the Event']

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 of Interlocutory Application in Intellectual Property Trade Marks Proceeding / Costs Determination Following the Respondents' Success in Resisting the Applicant's Interlocutory Challenge to Claims of Privilege

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Applicant should pay only 75% of the Respondents' costs of the interlocutory application because the Respondents conceded waiver in two documents during the hearing." "Whether the Applicant should receive a 25% reduction in costs because the interlocutory application was based on an available misunderstanding of paragraph 19 of the Respondents' Amended Defence." 'Whether the ordinary rule that costs follow the event should apply without reduction.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Respondents were otherwise successful on the interlocutory application, and neither the limited waiver concessions nor the Applicant's misunderstanding of paragraph 19 materially affected the time, cost, evidence or argument required for the application. There was therefore no basis to reduce the Respondents' costs recovery by 25%, and the ordinary rule that costs follow the event applied.

Court Disposition

The Applicant was ordered to pay the Respondents' costs of the Interlocutory Application filed 15 April 2021, with no 25% reduction.

Orders

  • ["The Applicant pay the Respondents' costs of the Interlocutory Application filed 15 April 2021."]