Henley Arch Pty Ltd v Henley Constructions Pty Ltd (No 3) [2022] FCA 408

Henley Arch Pty Ltd v Henley Constructions Pty Ltd (No 3) [2022] FCA 408

A stay of the Cost Orders was appropriate because the appeals were to be heard shortly, the appeal was at least arguable given the complexity of the Liability Judgment, the Respondents and Cross-Claimant had financial resources to meet the Cost Orders if unsuccessful, prejudice to the Applicant and Cross-Respondent was minimal, and costs and Court resources involved in assessing lump sum costs would likely be wasted if the appeals succeeded.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 April 2022
Procedural Posture
Application for a Stay of Orders Pending Appeal / Interlocutory Application Determined in Chambers and on the Papers
Outcome
Stay granted.
Legal Topics
['stay Pending Appeal' 'costs Orders' 'trade Marks']
['practice and Procedure' 'intellectual Property'] ['stay Pending Appeal' 'costs Orders' '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

Application for a Stay of Orders Pending Appeal / Interlocutory Application Determined in Chambers and on the Papers

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether order 9 of the orders made on 25 November 2021 should be stayed until the latter of the determination of appeal VID737/2021 or appeal VID164/2022.' 'Whether orders 1 and 2 of the orders made on 17 March 2022 should be stayed until the latter of the determination of appeal VID737/2021 or appeal VID164/2022.']

Ratio Decidendi

A stay of the Cost Orders was appropriate because the appeals were to be heard shortly, the appeal was at least arguable given the complexity of the Liability Judgment, the Respondents and Cross-Claimant had financial resources to meet the Cost Orders if unsuccessful, prejudice to the Applicant and Cross-Respondent was minimal, and costs and Court resources involved in assessing lump sum costs would likely be wasted if the appeals succeeded.

Court Disposition

Stay granted.

Orders

  • ['A stay of order 9 of the orders made on 25 November 2021 until the latter of the determination of the appeal VID737/2021 or the appeal VID164/2022.' 'A stay of orders 1 and 2 of the orders made on 17 March 2022 until the latter of the determination of the appeal VID737/2021 or the appeal VID164/2022.']