Coogi Australia Pty Ltd v Hysport International Pty Ltd & Ors [1998] FCA 1331

Coogi Australia Pty Ltd v Hysport International Pty Ltd & Ors [1998] FCA 1331

Although the respondents were successful, the first to sixth respondents were deprived of one-fifth of their costs of defending the applicant's claim because they were implicated in a deliberate failure to make proper discovery of correspondence with Shima Seiki and because Hysport's letter of 22 April 1993...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 October 1998
Procedural Posture
Copyright Proceeding and Cross Claim Concerning Unjustified Threats Under S 202 the Copyright Act 1968 (cth) / Costs and Final Orders After Trial
Outcome
Applicant's claims dismissed; judgment entered for the first to sixth respondents on their s 202 Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) claim; unjustified threats declared; inquiry ordered as to damages; costs apportioned.
Legal Topics
['discretion to Deprive Successful Party of Costs' 'improper Discovery' 'unjustified Threats' 'copyright Ownership and Infringement' 'costs of Cross Claim']
['costs' 'copyright'] ['discretion to Deprive Successful Party of Costs' 'improper Discovery' 'unjustified Threats' 'copyright Ownership and Infringement' 'costs of Cross Claim']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Copyright Proceeding and Cross Claim Concerning Unjustified Threats Under S 202 the Copyright Act 1968 (cth) / Costs and Final Orders After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the successful first to sixth respondents should be deprived of part of their costs of defending the applicant's claims." 'Whether the seventh respondent should be deprived of the ordinary order as to costs.' "What costs order should be made for the first to sixth respondents' cross-claim." "Whether the respondents' undertakings given on 27 July 1993 suggested that the applicant's claims might be justifiable."]

Ratio Decidendi

Although the respondents were successful, the first to sixth respondents were deprived of one-fifth of their costs of defending the applicant's claim because they were implicated in a deliberate failure to make proper discovery of correspondence with Shima Seiki and because Hysport's letter of 22 April 1993 reasonably led the applicant to believe it had a good cause of action. The seventh respondent was entitled to the ordinary costs order because there was no basis for depriving it of costs. The first to sixth respondents were entitled to only one-half of their cross-claim costs because they obtained only part of the relief sought.

Court Disposition

Applicant's claims dismissed; judgment entered for the first to sixth respondents on their s 202 Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) claim; unjustified threats declared; inquiry ordered as to damages; costs apportioned.

Orders

  • ["The applicant's claims against the respondents are dismissed." 'Judgment be entered for the first to sixth respondents in respect of their claim under s 202 the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth).' 'The threats, as particularised in para 28 of the cross-claim made by Coogi Australia Pty Ltd whether by itself, its directors,...