Haviv Holdings Pty Limited v Howards Storage World Pty Limited (No 2) [2009] FCA 652

Haviv Holdings Pty Limited v Howards Storage World Pty Limited (No 2) [2009] FCA 652

The applicants succeeded only on the claim for breach of the franchise agreement against the first respondent and were unsuccessful on all other trade practices claims and against other respondents. Costs should broadly follow this result: the first respondent is to pay applicants’ costs (with exceptions), and applicants are to pay respondents’ costs for claims related to rebates and GST, and discrete costs of joint parties as specified, reflecting the principle that costs follow the event, adjusted for separable unsuccessful claims.

Parties
First Applicant: Haviv Holdings Pty Limited; Second Applicant: Paul Aghion; First Respondent: Howards Storage World Pty Limited; Second Respondent: Plaza Home-Imports Pty Limited; Third Respondent: Dirk Spence
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 June 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil / Post Trial, Costs Determination
Outcome
Partially in favour of applicants for costs, with exceptions and apportionment as specified.
Legal Topics
Costs, Apportionment, Franchise Agreement Breach, Award of Damages, Misleading or Deceptive Conduct
Civil Procedure Contracts Trade Practices Franchising Costs Apportionment Franchise Agreement Breach Award of Damages +1 more

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 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Haviv Holdings Pty Limited

First Applicant

Paul Aghion

Second Applicant

Howards Storage World Pty Limited

First Respondent

Plaza Home-Imports Pty Limited

Second Respondent

Dirk Spence

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil / Post Trial, Costs Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 How should costs be apportioned where the applicant succeeded on only one claim among multiple claims and parties?
  2. 2 Are any claims, groups of issues, or parties dominant or separable for the purposes of costs orders?
  3. 3 Does the 'rule of thumb' for apportionment among multiple parties represented by single solicitors apply?

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants succeeded only on the claim for breach of the franchise agreement against the first respondent and were unsuccessful on all other trade practices claims and against other respondents. Costs should broadly follow this result: the first respondent is to pay applicants’ costs (with exceptions), and applicants are to pay respondents’ costs for claims related to rebates and GST, and discrete costs of joint parties as specified, reflecting the principle that costs follow the event, adjusted for separable unsuccessful claims.

Court Disposition

Partially in favour of applicants for costs, with exceptions and apportionment as specified.

Orders

  • Subject to specific exceptions, the first respondent is to pay the applicants' costs of the proceeding as agreed or taxed.
  • The respondents are to pay any costs incurred by the applicants by reason of the adjournment of the hearing on 30 October 2008 as agreed or taxed.