Community First Credit Union Limited v Bendigo and Adelaide Bank Limited (No 2) [2019] FCA 1976

Community First Credit Union Limited v Bendigo and Adelaide Bank Limited (No 2) [2019] FCA 1976

CFCU is entitled to its costs in both proceedings as the successful party, with no reduction, since there were no exceptional circumstances and evidence and issues were substantially overlapping. The inclusion of unsuccessful grounds did not unjustifiably add to trial length or cost, nor did Bendigo establish that any additional evidence was required for those grounds.

Parties
Appellant/applicant: Community First Credit Union Limited; Respondent/first Respondent: Bendigo and Adelaide Bank Limited; Second Respondent: Registrar of Trade Marks
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 November 2019
Procedural Posture
Appeal and Application for Rectification / Costs Determination After Substantive Judgment
Outcome
Costs awarded in full to CFCU; application for costs for expert report response refused.
Legal Topics
Trade Marks, Costs
Intellectual Property Trade Marks 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 3 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Community First Credit Union Limited

Appellant/applicant

Bendigo and Adelaide Bank Limited

Respondent/first Respondent

Registrar of Trade Marks

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal and Application for Rectification / Costs Determination After Substantive Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether costs should follow the event in two related proceedings where success was partial in rectification proceeding and complete in appeal
  2. 2 Whether a compendious costs order should be reduced for lack of success on some grounds
  3. 3 Whether the respondent is entitled to costs of responding to an expert report

Ratio Decidendi

CFCU is entitled to its costs in both proceedings as the successful party, with no reduction, since there were no exceptional circumstances and evidence and issues were substantially overlapping. The inclusion of unsuccessful grounds did not unjustifiably add to trial length or cost, nor did Bendigo establish that any additional evidence was required for those grounds.

Court Disposition

Costs awarded in full to CFCU; application for costs for expert report response refused.

Orders

  • The respondent pay the appellant's costs of NSD 1386 of 2017.
  • The first respondent pay the applicant's costs of NSD 1389 of 2017.