Microsoft Corporation v Chambers [2000] FCA 315

Microsoft Corporation v Chambers [2000] FCA 315

The applicants were entitled to costs because, after receiving the documents on 21 December 1999, the respondent did not promptly make clear the position later taken in his affidavit of 17 February 2000 and appeared to have avoided confronting and dealing with the proceeding. The delivery-up order was varied because...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 March 2000
Procedural Posture
Proceeding for Infringement of Copyright, Infringement of Registered Trade Marks and Contravention of the Fair Trading Act 1987 (sa) / Final Orders After Consent Orders, With Costs Outstanding
Outcome
Order 2 made on 25 February 2000 was varied, the respondent was ordered to pay the applicants' costs, Order 62 rule 36A was disapplied, and the proceeding was otherwise dismissed.
Legal Topics
['microsoft Computer Programs' 'microsoft and WINDOWS Word Marks' 'alleged Reproduction and Sale of Microsoft Windows 98' 'delivery Up' 'default or Final Relief' 'costs of the Proceeding']
['intellectual Property' 'copyright' 'trade Marks' 'fair Trading' 'civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['microsoft Computer Programs' 'microsoft and WINDOWS Word Marks' 'alleged Reproduction and Sale of Microsoft Windows 98' 'delivery Up' 'default or Final Relief' 'costs of the Proceeding']

Source-derived case record

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

Proceeding for Infringement of Copyright, Infringement of Registered Trade Marks and Contravention of the Fair Trading Act 1987 (sa) / Final Orders After Consent Orders, With Costs Outstanding

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the respondent should pay the applicants' costs of the proceeding after consent final orders were made without admissions." 'Whether the earlier delivery-up order should be varied so that it operated as a final order.']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants were entitled to costs because, after receiving the documents on 21 December 1999, the respondent did not promptly make clear the position later taken in his affidavit of 17 February 2000 and appeared to have avoided confronting and dealing with the proceeding. The delivery-up order was varied because the final hearing had been completed and the interlocutory order could be made final.

Court Disposition

Order 2 made on 25 February 2000 was varied, the respondent was ordered to pay the applicants' costs, Order 62 rule 36A was disapplied, and the proceeding was otherwise dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Order 2 made on 25 February, 2000 be varied as from today\'s date by deletion of the words "to be held by them pending the final hearing and determination of this proceeding".' "The respondent pay the applicants' costs of the proceeding." 'The provisions of O 62, r 36A shall not apply.' 'The proceeding be...