Coretell Pty Ltd v Australian Mud Company Pty Ltd (No 2) [2017] FCAFC 122

Coretell Pty Ltd v Australian Mud Company Pty Ltd (No 2) [2017] FCAFC 122

A lump sum costs order was appropriate because the economics of proceeding to taxation were not justified, the expert costs evidence was largely in agreement despite methodological differences, the pending special leave application did not warrant taxation, and further delay was not justified. The Court fixed the respondents' appeal costs, after allowing for their 90% entitlement, at $334,560, ordered release of the $200,000 security for costs in partial satisfaction, and fixed the respondents' costs of the variation application at $11,000.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 August 2017
Procedural Posture
Application to Vary Costs Order in an Appeal / Determined on the Papers After Dismissal of the Appeal
Outcome
Application to vary costs order allowed; lump sum costs and release of security for costs ordered.
Legal Topics
['lump Sum Costs' 'security for Costs' 'taxation of Costs' 'application to Vary Costs Order']
['costs' 'civil Procedure' 'intellectual Property' 'patents and Associated Statutes'] ['lump Sum Costs' 'security for Costs' 'taxation of Costs' 'application to Vary Costs Order']

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 to Vary Costs Order in an Appeal / Determined on the Papers After Dismissal of the Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether Order 3 of the orders made on 3 April 2017 should be varied to fix the respondents' costs of the appeal as a lump sum." 'Whether the security for costs paid for the appeal should be released to the respondents in partial satisfaction of the costs order.' 'What amount should be fixed for the costs of the application to vary Order 3.']

Ratio Decidendi

A lump sum costs order was appropriate because the economics of proceeding to taxation were not justified, the expert costs evidence was largely in agreement despite methodological differences, the pending special leave application did not warrant taxation, and further delay was not justified. The Court fixed the respondents' appeal costs, after allowing for their 90% entitlement, at $334,560, ordered release of the $200,000 security for costs in partial satisfaction, and fixed the respondents' costs of the variation application at $11,000.

Court Disposition

Application to vary costs order allowed; lump sum costs and release of security for costs ordered.

Orders

  • ['Order 3 of the Court made on 3 April 2017 be set aside.' "The appellants pay ninety per cent of the respondents' costs of the appeal fixed in the amount of $334,560." 'The $200,000 paid as security for costs pursuant to the orders of 23 May 2016 be released to the respondents in partial satisfaction of the sum...