Airservices Australia v Jeppesen Sanderson Inc [2006] FCA 906

Airservices Australia v Jeppesen Sanderson Inc [2006] FCA 906

Given the history of repeated amendments and proposed amendments, the uncertainty and changes in the applicant's claims, and the wasted and unnecessary expense imposed on the first and second respondents, justice required the applicant to bear the respondents' costs thrown away on a party and party basis. Because the applicant had changed its position on infringement relief in circumstances affecting the discontinued Cross-Claim, it would be unjust to leave the 17 December 2004 costs order in place. The respondents, having succeeded on the motion, were also entitled to their costs of the motion and to have the relevant costs taxed and paid forthwith.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 July 2006
Procedural Posture
Costs Motion in Copyright Proceedings / Interlocutory Application by the First and Second Respondents for Costs Thrown Away by Amendments and Proposed Amendments, and to Set Aside an Earlier Costs Order
Outcome
Motion granted; costs thrown away ordered against the applicant, earlier costs order set aside, and leave granted to tax and recover costs forthwith.
Legal Topics
['costs Thrown Away' 'amendment of Pleadings' 'taxation of Costs Forthwith' 'setting Aside Costs Order' 'copyright in Aeronautical Publications']
['civil Procedure' 'costs' 'copyright'] ['costs Thrown Away' 'amendment of Pleadings' 'taxation of Costs Forthwith' 'setting Aside Costs Order' 'copyright in Aeronautical Publications']

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

Costs Motion in Copyright Proceedings / Interlocutory Application by the First and Second Respondents for Costs Thrown Away by Amendments and Proposed Amendments, and to Set Aside an Earlier Costs Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the applicant should pay the first and second respondents' costs thrown away by amendments and proposed amendments to the Application, Statement of Claim and Reply." "Whether the costs order made on 17 December 2004 requiring the respondents to pay the applicant's costs thrown away by reason of the Cross-Claim should be set aside." 'Whether the first and second respondents should have leave to tax the costs forthwith and have them paid forthwith.']

Ratio Decidendi

Given the history of repeated amendments and proposed amendments, the uncertainty and changes in the applicant's claims, and the wasted and unnecessary expense imposed on the first and second respondents, justice required the applicant to bear the respondents' costs thrown away on a party and party basis. Because the applicant had changed its position on infringement relief in circumstances affecting the discontinued Cross-Claim, it would be unjust to leave the 17 December 2004 costs order in place. The respondents, having succeeded on the motion, were also entitled to their costs of the motion and to have the relevant costs taxed and paid forthwith.

Court Disposition

Motion granted; costs thrown away ordered against the applicant, earlier costs order set aside, and leave granted to tax and recover costs forthwith.

Orders

  • ["The Applicant pay the First and Second Respondents' costs on a party and party basis, as agreed or taxed, thrown away by reason of the amendments to the Statement of Claim made on 10 May 2004." "The Applicant pay the First and Second Respondents' costs on a party and party basis, as agreed or taxed, thrown away by...