Coogi Australia Pty Ltd v Hysport International Pty Ltd & Ors [1998] FCA 1270

Coogi Australia Pty Ltd v Hysport International Pty Ltd & Ors [1998] FCA 1270

The applicant failed to establish any agreement exempting the first to sixth respondents from liability for payment of their solicitors' costs; no proper basis was shown to access privileged communications; accordingly, the notice of motion was dismissed, and costs were awarded to respondents.

Parties
Applicant: Coogi Australia Pty Ltd; First Respondent: Hysport International Pty Ltd; Second Respondent: Geoffrey Gray Jones; Third Respondent: Joan Margaret Jones; Fourth Respondent: Terence Gray Jones; Fifth Respondent: Harry Geoffrey Brown; Sixth Respondent: Jennifer Anne Brown; Seventh Respondent: Bromsgrove Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 September 1998
Procedural Posture
Motion on Notice in Ongoing Civil Proceeding / Post Trial, Pending Finalisation of Costs and Orders
Outcome
Notice of motion dismissed; costs awarded against applicant.
Legal Topics
Costs, Third Party Funding, Legal Professional Privilege
Civil Procedure Costs Third Party Funding Legal Professional Privilege

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Coogi Australia Pty Ltd

Applicant

Hysport International Pty Ltd

First Respondent

Geoffrey Gray Jones

Second Respondent

Joan Margaret Jones

Third Respondent

Terence Gray Jones

Fourth Respondent

Harry Geoffrey Brown

Fifth Respondent

Jennifer Anne Brown

Sixth Respondent

Bromsgrove Pty Ltd

Seventh Respondent

Procedural Posture

Motion on Notice in Ongoing Civil Proceeding / Post Trial, Pending Finalisation of Costs and Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether applicant is entitled to access agreements regarding third party payment of respondents' costs
  2. 2 Whether respondents are exempt from liability for their solicitors' costs by agreement
  3. 3 Whether communications between respondents and third party funder are privileged

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to establish any agreement exempting the first to sixth respondents from liability for payment of their solicitors' costs; no proper basis was shown to access privileged communications; accordingly, the notice of motion was dismissed, and costs were awarded to respondents.

Court Disposition

Notice of motion dismissed; costs awarded against applicant.

Orders

  • The notice of motion filed 17 September 1998 be dismissed.
  • The applicant to pay the costs of all respondents of and incidental to the notice of motion filed on 17 September 1998.