Accor Australia & New Zealand Hospitality Pty Ltd v Liv Pty Ltd (No 3) [2018] FCAFC 231

Accor Australia & New Zealand Hospitality Pty Ltd v Liv Pty Ltd (No 3) [2018] FCAFC 231

The matter was plainly appropriate for a lump sum award of costs because such an award would eliminate the time and likely substantial costs associated with a full taxation, the nature of the matter supported that course, and Mr Taylor's evidence supported the conclusion. Although there had been considerable delay in bringing the application, the delay was outweighed by the factors strongly supporting a lump sum order. The respondents were entitled to be heard on quantum, which should be fixed by the primary judge rather than the Full Court.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 December 2018
Procedural Posture
Costs Application in an Appeal / Application Determined on the Papers Seeking Variation of Previous Costs Orders and a Lump Sum Costs Order
Outcome
Application allowed; previous costs orders varied to provide for a lump sum award of costs to be fixed by the primary judge.
Legal Topics
['lump Sum Costs' 'taxation of Costs' 'appeal Costs' 'trade Marks']
['costs' 'intellectual Property'] ['lump Sum Costs' 'taxation of Costs' 'appeal Costs' 'trade Marks']

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 an Appeal / Application Determined on the Papers Seeking Variation of Previous Costs Orders and a Lump Sum Costs Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Court should vary previous costs orders to make the relevant costs the subject of a lump sum award of costs.' 'Whether a lump sum costs order was appropriate despite delay in bringing the application.' 'Whether the quantum of any lump sum costs order should be fixed by the Full Court or by the primary judge.']

Ratio Decidendi

The matter was plainly appropriate for a lump sum award of costs because such an award would eliminate the time and likely substantial costs associated with a full taxation, the nature of the matter supported that course, and Mr Taylor's evidence supported the conclusion. Although there had been considerable delay in bringing the application, the delay was outweighed by the factors strongly supporting a lump sum order. The respondents were entitled to be heard on quantum, which should be fixed by the primary judge rather than the Full Court.

Court Disposition

Application allowed; previous costs orders varied to provide for a lump sum award of costs to be fixed by the primary judge.

Orders

  • ['The orders of the Court made on 31 July 2017 be varied by the addition of the following order: 6. The costs which are the subject of paragraphs 2(e), 4 and 5 above be the subject of a lump sum award of costs, such lump sum award to be fixed by the primary judge.']