Selth v Australasian Barrister Chambers Pty Ltd (No 4) [2017] FCA 855

Selth v Australasian Barrister Chambers Pty Ltd (No 4) [2017] FCA 855

The NSWBA applicant was entirely successful, incurred expense to make good its case, and engaged in no disentitling conduct, so it was entitled to costs on the usual basis. The ABA applicants were substantially successful and their unsuccessful contention concerning the name Australasian Barrister Chambers and the scales of justice device was not discrete, was relatively minor, and did not justify departing from the usual rule that successful parties receive costs. However, because Australasian Barrister Chambers Pty Ltd submitted to any order the Court might make on 16 December 2015, it should not be ordered to pay costs incurred on and after that date, but should pay costs up to and...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 July 2017
Procedural Posture
Intellectual Property Proceedings Concerning Trade Marks / Costs Determination Following Principal Judgment
Outcome
Costs ordered in favour of the applicants on the usual basis, with Australasian Barrister Chambers Pty Ltd liable only for costs up to and including 15 December 2015.
Legal Topics
['trade Marks' 'costs' 'federal Court Costs Discretion']
['intellectual Property' 'civil Procedure'] ['trade Marks' 'costs' 'federal Court Costs Discretion']

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

Intellectual Property Proceedings Concerning Trade Marks / Costs Determination Following Principal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the successful applicants should receive their costs of and incidental to the proceedings on the usual party and party basis.' "Whether the ABA applicants' lack of success on one trade mark infringement issue warranted a departure from the usual costs order." 'Whether Australasian Barrister Chambers Pty Ltd should be liable for costs incurred after its liquidator filed a notice submitting to any order the Court might make on 16 December 2015.']

Ratio Decidendi

The NSWBA applicant was entirely successful, incurred expense to make good its case, and engaged in no disentitling conduct, so it was entitled to costs on the usual basis. The ABA applicants were substantially successful and their unsuccessful contention concerning the name Australasian Barrister Chambers and the scales of justice device was not discrete, was relatively minor, and did not justify departing from the usual rule that successful parties receive costs. However, because Australasian Barrister Chambers Pty Ltd submitted to any order the Court might make on 16 December 2015, it should not be ordered to pay costs incurred on and after that date, but should pay costs up to and...

Court Disposition

Costs ordered in favour of the applicants on the usual basis, with Australasian Barrister Chambers Pty Ltd liable only for costs up to and including 15 December 2015.

Orders

  • ['NSD 975 of 2014: The second and third respondents pay the costs of the first and second applicants of and incidental to the proceeding to be taxed or otherwise agreed.' 'NSD 975 of 2014: The first respondent pay the costs of the first and second applicants of and incidental to the proceeding to be taxed or...