Australian Competition Consumer Commission v Amcor Printing Papers Group Ltd [2000] FCA 163

Australian Competition Consumer Commission v Amcor Printing Papers Group Ltd [2000] FCA 163

The respondent parties did not provide sufficiently detailed or timely reasons in their Calderbank offers or correspondence to warrant departing from the usual order that the applicant pay party and party costs; mere rejection of Calderbank offers, without more, was not imprudent or unreasonable in the circumstances.

Parties
Applicant: Australian Competition and Consumer Commission; First Respondent: Amcor Printing Papers Group Ltd; Second Respondent: Visy Paper Pty Ltd; Third Respondent: Anthony Nott; Fourth Respondent: William Guthridge; Previously Fifth Respondent: David Roach
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 February 2000
Procedural Posture
Costs Determination Following Dismissal and Discontinuance / Post Judgment Costs Order
Outcome
Costs ordered on a party and party basis; no order for indemnity costs.
Legal Topics
Costs, Indemnity Costs, Calderbank Offers, Trade Practices Act
Competition Law Civil Procedure Costs Indemnity Costs Calderbank Offers Trade Practices Act

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 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission

Applicant

Amcor Printing Papers Group Ltd

First Respondent

Visy Paper Pty Ltd

Second Respondent

Anthony Nott

Third Respondent

William Guthridge

Fourth Respondent

David Roach

Previously Fifth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Costs Determination Following Dismissal and Discontinuance / Post Judgment Costs Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether costs should be awarded on an indemnity basis or party and party basis
  2. 2 Whether rejection of Calderbank offers warrants indemnity costs
  3. 3 Whether the applicant's conduct justified indemnity costs

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent parties did not provide sufficiently detailed or timely reasons in their Calderbank offers or correspondence to warrant departing from the usual order that the applicant pay party and party costs; mere rejection of Calderbank offers, without more, was not imprudent or unreasonable in the circumstances.

Court Disposition

Costs ordered on a party and party basis; no order for indemnity costs.

Orders

  • The applicant pay the costs of each of the first to fourth respondents on a party and party basis.
  • The applicant pay the costs of David Roach, previously the fifth respondent, on a party and party basis.