Microsoft Corporation v Crosslink Marketing Group (CMG) Pty Limited [2005] FCA 1220

Microsoft Corporation v Crosslink Marketing Group (CMG) Pty Limited [2005] FCA 1220

The motion was dismissed because Mr Walker withdrew, the first respondent had not appeared, and it was no longer possible for the motion to proceed. Indemnity costs were ordered because nothing said by Mr Walker could lead even to the suggestion of fraud and the application had no prospects of success.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 August 2005
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion to Set Aside a Compromise on the Ground of Fraud in Connection With Production or Disclosure of Documents / Hearing of Motion After the Proceedings Had Previously Been Disposed of Pursuant to a Compromise, With No Final Order Made
Outcome
Notice of motion dismissed; indemnity costs ordered against the first and second respondents.
Legal Topics
['setting Aside Compromise' 'fraud Allegation' 'production or Disclosure of Documents' 'admissibility of Affidavit Evidence' 'corporate Representation' 'recusal' 'indemnity Costs']
['civil Procedure' 'evidence' 'costs'] ['setting Aside Compromise' 'fraud Allegation' 'production or Disclosure of Documents' 'admissibility of Affidavit Evidence' 'corporate Representation' 'recusal' 'indemnity Costs']

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

Notice of Motion to Set Aside a Compromise on the Ground of Fraud in Connection With Production or Disclosure of Documents / Hearing of Motion After the Proceedings Had Previously Been Disposed of Pursuant to a Compromise, With No Final Order Made

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Mr Walker had authority to appear on behalf of the first respondent corporation.' "Whether aspects of Mr Walker's affidavits were admissible or should be excluded as irrelevant, imprecise or argumentative." 'Whether the judge should recuse himself on the basis of alleged bias against Mr Walker.' 'Whether the motion to set aside the compromise could proceed after Mr Walker withdrew and the first respondent had not appeared.' 'Whether indemnity costs should be ordered against the first and second respondents.']

Ratio Decidendi

The motion was dismissed because Mr Walker withdrew, the first respondent had not appeared, and it was no longer possible for the motion to proceed. Indemnity costs were ordered because nothing said by Mr Walker could lead even to the suggestion of fraud and the application had no prospects of success.

Court Disposition

Notice of motion dismissed; indemnity costs ordered against the first and second respondents.

Orders

  • ['The notice of motion filed on 26 July 2005 by the first and second respondents be dismissed.' 'The first and second respondents pay the costs of and incidental to the motion on an indemnity basis, being the costs incurred by the first, second, and third applicants.']