Allergan Australia Pty Ltd v Self Care IP Holdings Pty Ltd (No 3) [2023] FCA 683

Allergan Australia Pty Ltd v Self Care IP Holdings Pty Ltd (No 3) [2023] FCA 683

The respondents were entitled to their costs of the stay application because the stay was not an indulgence but a case management step, the respondents obtained the stay they sought after the applicants resisted until shortly before the hearing, and the respondents' success in the High Court showed that progressing the remitted proceedings would have wasted time, effort and costs. The costs order was limited to the period from 10 December 2021 because the earlier October 2021 request concerned a different proposed stay of injunctions, not the stay of the proceedings.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 June 2023
Procedural Posture
Costs Application in Intellectual Property Proceedings / Determined on the Papers
Outcome
The applicants were ordered to pay the respondents' costs of the stay application from 10 December 2021 until the consent stay orders on 14 February 2022, and the costs of the competing applications about stay-related costs, with quantification by agreement or lump-sum determination by a Registrar.
Legal Topics
['costs of Stay Application' 'stay of Proceedings Pending Special Leave Applications and Appeals to the High Court' 'costs Follow the Event' 'case Management' 'quantification of Damages and Account of Profits']
['intellectual Property' 'trade Marks' 'consumer Law' 'civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['costs of Stay Application' 'stay of Proceedings Pending Special Leave Applications and Appeals to the High Court' 'costs Follow the Event' 'case Management' 'quantification of Damages and Account of Profits']

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 Application in Intellectual Property Proceedings / Determined on the Papers

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the applicants should pay the respondents' costs of and incidental to the application for a stay of the proceedings pending the outcome of High Court special leave applications and any appeals." 'Whether the stay was properly characterised as an indulgence to the respondents such that each party should bear its own costs.' 'From what date any costs order for the stay application should run.']

Ratio Decidendi

The respondents were entitled to their costs of the stay application because the stay was not an indulgence but a case management step, the respondents obtained the stay they sought after the applicants resisted until shortly before the hearing, and the respondents' success in the High Court showed that progressing the remitted proceedings would have wasted time, effort and costs. The costs order was limited to the period from 10 December 2021 because the earlier October 2021 request concerned a different proposed stay of injunctions, not the stay of the proceedings.

Court Disposition

The applicants were ordered to pay the respondents' costs of the stay application from 10 December 2021 until the consent stay orders on 14 February 2022, and the costs of the competing applications about stay-related costs, with quantification by agreement or lump-sum determination by a Registrar.

Orders

  • ["The applicants pay the costs of and incidental to the respondents' application for a stay of the proceedings, from 10 December 2021 up until the stay was consented to by orders on 14 February 2022, including the costs of the case management hearing on 16 December 2021." "The applicants pay the costs of the...