Lipson v Penrice Soda Products Pty Ltd (No 2) [2012] FCA 337

Lipson v Penrice Soda Products Pty Ltd (No 2) [2012] FCA 337

Because the prospective applicants succeeded in obtaining preliminary discovery but their request was broadly expressed and the orders made were significantly more confined than those initially proposed, while the prospective respondent maintained a blanket opposition and left the applicants little alternative but to apply, the interests of justice were best served by each party bearing its own costs rather than reserving costs for possible substantive proceedings.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 April 2012
Procedural Posture
Application for Pre Action Discovery; Costs Determination / Costs Reserved After Orders for Preliminary Discovery; Heard on the Papers
Outcome
No order as to costs of the application.
Legal Topics
['pre Action Discovery' 'costs Discretion' 'federal Court Rules 2011 Division 7.3' 'security for Costs and Expenses']
['civil Procedure' 'costs' 'preliminary Discovery'] ['pre Action Discovery' 'costs Discretion' 'federal Court Rules 2011 Division 7.3' 'security for Costs and Expenses']

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 Pre Action Discovery; Costs Determination / Costs Reserved After Orders for Preliminary Discovery; Heard on the Papers

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the prospective applicants or the prospective respondent should be awarded costs of the pre-action discovery application, or whether costs should be reserved pending substantive proceedings.' "Whether the parties should each bear their own costs where preliminary discovery was ordered but the applicants' request was broader than the orders ultimately made and the respondent maintained blanket opposition."]

Ratio Decidendi

Because the prospective applicants succeeded in obtaining preliminary discovery but their request was broadly expressed and the orders made were significantly more confined than those initially proposed, while the prospective respondent maintained a blanket opposition and left the applicants little alternative but to apply, the interests of justice were best served by each party bearing its own costs rather than reserving costs for possible substantive proceedings.

Court Disposition

No order as to costs of the application.

Orders

  • ['There be no order as to costs of the application.']