Career Step, LLC v TalentMed Pty Ltd (No 3) [2018] FCA 411

Career Step, LLC v TalentMed Pty Ltd (No 3) [2018] FCA 411

The Court ordered the respondents to pay 80% of the applicant’s costs up to and including 21 July 2017, reflecting the applicant’s substantial but not complete success (successful as to TalentMed v1 and unsuccessful as to v2); immediate taxation/payment of costs was refused due to potential inefficiency and possible need for set-off; the purpose of security for costs having been spent, the amount paid should be returned to the applicant.

Parties
Applicant: Career Step, LLC; First Respondent: TalentMed Pty Ltd ACN 125 458 808; Second Respondent: Lyndie Ellen Arkell; Third Respondent: Timothy Arkell
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 April 2018
Procedural Posture
Costs Determination (following Determination of Separate Question) / Post Interlocutory (following Partial Judgment on Liability, Orders on Costs and Security)
Outcome
Respondents to pay 80% of applicant's costs up to and including 21 July 2017; immediate taxation/payment refused; security for costs to be returned to applicant.
Legal Topics
Copyright Infringement, Costs, Security for Costs, Breach of Contract
Intellectual Property Practice and Procedure Copyright Infringement Costs Security for Costs Breach of Contract

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Career Step, LLC

Applicant

TalentMed Pty Ltd ACN 125 458 808

First Respondent

Lyndie Ellen Arkell

Second Respondent

Timothy Arkell

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Costs Determination (following Determination of Separate Question) / Post Interlocutory (following Partial Judgment on Liability, Orders on Costs and Security)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Appropriate apportionment of costs following mixed success in intellectual property proceedings
  2. 2 Whether costs should be taxed and paid immediately or deferred until conclusion of proceedings
  3. 3 Whether security for costs paid into court should be returned to applicant

Ratio Decidendi

The Court ordered the respondents to pay 80% of the applicant’s costs up to and including 21 July 2017, reflecting the applicant’s substantial but not complete success (successful as to TalentMed v1 and unsuccessful as to v2); immediate taxation/payment of costs was refused due to potential inefficiency and possible need for set-off; the purpose of security for costs having been spent, the amount paid should be returned to the applicant.

Court Disposition

Respondents to pay 80% of applicant's costs up to and including 21 July 2017; immediate taxation/payment refused; security for costs to be returned to applicant.

Orders

  • The respondents pay 80% of the applicant's costs of the proceedings up to and including 21 July 2017.
  • The applicant's application that its costs be taxed and paid immediately is refused.