Re.Group Pty Ltd v Kazal (No 6) [2019] FCA 168

Re.Group Pty Ltd v Kazal (No 6) [2019] FCA 168

The Second Respondent filed within time and the application was treated as a review under s 35A(5), but he adduced no additional evidence and identified no particular error in the registrar's reasons. On a de novo review of the central disputed issues, the Court agreed with the registrar that there was no demonstrated overlap with the main proceeding, the discounted solicitor and senior counsel rates were acceptable on an indemnity basis, two solicitors in Court were reasonable, the costs assessment expenses were properly reduced, and a 10% discount on solicitors' costs was appropriate. The Court therefore fixed the Applicants' costs payable by the Second Respondent at the same lump sum...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 February 2019
Procedural Posture
Application for Review of Registrar's Lump Sum Costs Determination in Contempt Proceeding / Determined on the Papers
Outcome
The review did not reduce the registrar's lump sum determination; the Applicants' costs payable by the Second Respondent were fixed at $415,000.
Legal Topics
['lump Sum Costs' 'indemnity Costs' "review of Registrar's Exercise of Court Power" 'contempt Proceeding Costs' 'copyright and Industrial Designs']
['costs' 'intellectual Property'] ['lump Sum Costs' 'indemnity Costs' "review of Registrar's Exercise of Court Power" 'contempt Proceeding Costs' 'copyright and Industrial Designs']

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

Application for Review of Registrar's Lump Sum Costs Determination in Contempt Proceeding / Determined on the Papers

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the registrar's lump sum costs determination should be reviewed under s 35A(5) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) rather than r 40.34 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth)." 'Whether the costs claimed for the contempt proceeding overlapped with costs of the main proceeding.' "Whether the charge out rates of the Applicants' solicitors were appropriate under an indemnity costs order." "Whether senior counsel's rates should be discounted further." 'Whether it was reasonable for the Applicants to have two solicitors in Court.' "Whether the Applicants' costs of assessing their costs should be reduced." 'Whether a general discount should be applied to reflect the possibility of unreasonably incurred costs.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Second Respondent filed within time and the application was treated as a review under s 35A(5), but he adduced no additional evidence and identified no particular error in the registrar's reasons. On a de novo review of the central disputed issues, the Court agreed with the registrar that there was no demonstrated overlap with the main proceeding, the discounted solicitor and senior counsel rates were acceptable on an indemnity basis, two solicitors in Court were reasonable, the costs assessment expenses were properly reduced, and a 10% discount on solicitors' costs was appropriate. The Court therefore fixed the Applicants' costs payable by the Second Respondent at the same lump sum...

Court Disposition

The review did not reduce the registrar's lump sum determination; the Applicants' costs payable by the Second Respondent were fixed at $415,000.

Orders

  • ['The costs of the Applicants payable by the Second Respondent pursuant to Order 1 made on 23 April 2018 be fixed in the sum of $415,000.00.' 'The Applicants be at liberty to enforce the sum ordered in Order 1 without the need for any further grant of leave by the Court.' 'The contempt proceeding be stood over for a...