Crescent Capital Partners Management Pty Limited v Crescent Wealth Investments Australasia Pty Ltd [2025] FCA 133

Crescent Capital Partners Management Pty Limited v Crescent Wealth Investments Australasia Pty Ltd [2025] FCA 133

The applicant is not entitled to costs as the respondents have not capitulated or surrendered. There was no unreasonable conduct warranting a departure from the default rule. As per r 26.12(7), the applicant must pay the respondents' costs upon discontinuance.

Parties
Applicant / Cross Respondent: Crescent Capital Partners Management Pty Limited; First Respondent / First Cross Claimant: Crescent Wealth Investments Australasia Pty Ltd; Second Respondent / Second Cross Claimant: Crescent Wealth Funds Management (Aust) Pty Limited; Third Respondent: Crescent Holdings Australia Pty Ltd; Fourth Respondent: Crescent Consolidated Group Holdings Pty Ltd; Fifth Respondent: Crescent Wealth Group Holdings Pty Ltd; Sixth Respondent: Crescent Wealth Financial Services Pty Ltd; Seventh Respondent / Third Cross Claimant: Crescent Wealth Super Member Services Pty Ltd; Eighth Respondent: Crescent Institute Limited; Ninth Respondent: Crescent Foundation Fund Pty Ltd; Tenth Respondent: Crescent Finance Holdings Pty Ltd; Eleventh Respondent: Crescent Finance Pty Ltd; Twelfth Respondent: Crescent Finance IP Pty Ltd; Thirteenth Respondent / Fourth Cross Claimant: Crescent Finance Licensing Pty Ltd; Fourteenth Respondent / Fifth Cross Claimant: Crescent Finance Operating Pty Ltd; Fifteenth Respondent: Crescent Finance Master Income Fund Pty Ltd; Sixteenth Respondent: Crescent Finance Charity Pty Ltd; Seventeenth Respondent: Yassine Corporation Pty Limited; Eighteenth Respondent: Talal Yassine; Nineteenth Respondent: First Crescent Wealth Pty Ltd; Twentieth Respondent: Crescent Holdings Group Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 February 2025
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application in Intellectual Property Proceeding With Cross Claim / Post Discontinuance, Orders for Costs
Outcome
Applicant's application dismissed; applicant to pay respondents' costs.
Legal Topics
Trade Marks, Costs, Discontinuance of Proceedings, Consumer Protection, Passing Off
Intellectual Property Trade Marks Costs Discontinuance of Proceedings Consumer Protection Passing Off

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 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Crescent Capital Partners Management Pty Limited

Applicant / Cross Respondent

Crescent Wealth Investments Australasia Pty Ltd

First Respondent / First Cross Claimant

Crescent Wealth Funds Management (Aust) Pty Limited

Second Respondent / Second Cross Claimant

Crescent Holdings Australia Pty Ltd

Third Respondent

Crescent Consolidated Group Holdings Pty Ltd

Fourth Respondent

Crescent Wealth Group Holdings Pty Ltd

Fifth Respondent

Crescent Wealth Financial Services Pty Ltd

Sixth Respondent

Crescent Wealth Super Member Services Pty Ltd

Seventh Respondent / Third Cross Claimant

Crescent Institute Limited

Eighth Respondent

Crescent Foundation Fund Pty Ltd

Ninth Respondent

Crescent Finance Holdings Pty Ltd

Tenth Respondent

Crescent Finance Pty Ltd

Eleventh Respondent

Crescent Finance IP Pty Ltd

Twelfth Respondent

Crescent Finance Licensing Pty Ltd

Thirteenth Respondent / Fourth Cross Claimant

Crescent Finance Operating Pty Ltd

Fourteenth Respondent / Fifth Cross Claimant

Crescent Finance Master Income Fund Pty Ltd

Fifteenth Respondent

Crescent Finance Charity Pty Ltd

Sixteenth Respondent

Yassine Corporation Pty Limited

Seventeenth Respondent

Talal Yassine

Eighteenth Respondent

First Crescent Wealth Pty Ltd

Nineteenth Respondent

Crescent Holdings Group Pty Ltd

Twentieth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application in Intellectual Property Proceeding With Cross Claim / Post Discontinuance, Orders for Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether costs should be awarded to the applicant following discontinuance of claim
  2. 2 Whether respondents capitulated or surrendered justifying costs order
  3. 3 Whether respondents' conduct was unreasonable justifying costs order

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant is not entitled to costs as the respondents have not capitulated or surrendered. There was no unreasonable conduct warranting a departure from the default rule. As per r 26.12(7), the applicant must pay the respondents' costs upon discontinuance.

Court Disposition

Applicant's application dismissed; applicant to pay respondents' costs.

Orders

  • The applicant's further amended interlocutory application filed on 5 February 2025 is dismissed.
  • The applicant pay the respondents' costs of that application.