Asia Television Ltd v Yau's Entertainment Pty Ltd [2003] FCA 965

Asia Television Ltd v Yau's Entertainment Pty Ltd [2003] FCA 965

Yau's succeeded on the principal issues of wrongful termination of licence and substantial damages, and that success also defeated the applicants' intellectual property and other claims dependent on termination. The applicants succeeded on some infringement and other breach issues for the earlier period and on defending the trade mark revocation claim, but the damages established were relatively minor. It was therefore appropriate for the applicants/cross-respondents to pay four-fifths of Yau's costs of the claim and cross-claim. Yau's was not entitled to a Bullock order because its cross-claim against Chinatown had been dismissed by consent.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 September 2003
Procedural Posture
Costs Judgment / After Substantive Judgment, Determination of Outstanding Questions of Costs
Outcome
The applicants/cross-respondents were ordered to pay four-fifths of Yau's costs of the claim and cross-claim, and Yau's request for a Bullock order was refused.
Legal Topics
['costs Following Mixed Success' 'bullock Order' 'wrongful Termination of Licence' 'intellectual Property Infringement' 'trade Mark Revocation']
['civil Procedure' 'costs' 'intellectual Property' 'contract'] ['costs Following Mixed Success' 'bullock Order' 'wrongful Termination of Licence' 'intellectual Property Infringement' 'trade Mark Revocation']

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Costs Judgment / After Substantive Judgment, Determination of Outstanding Questions of Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["What costs order should be made where Yau's succeeded on the principal issues and the applicants succeeded on some minor issues." "Whether Yau's was entitled to a Bullock order in respect of costs it had been ordered to pay to Chinatown Entertainment (Australia) Pty Limited."]

Ratio Decidendi

Yau's succeeded on the principal issues of wrongful termination of licence and substantial damages, and that success also defeated the applicants' intellectual property and other claims dependent on termination. The applicants succeeded on some infringement and other breach issues for the earlier period and on defending the trade mark revocation claim, but the damages established were relatively minor. It was therefore appropriate for the applicants/cross-respondents to pay four-fifths of Yau's costs of the claim and cross-claim. Yau's was not entitled to a Bullock order because its cross-claim against Chinatown had been dismissed by consent.

Court Disposition

The applicants/cross-respondents were ordered to pay four-fifths of Yau's costs of the claim and cross-claim, and Yau's request for a Bullock order was refused.

Orders

  • ["The applicants/cross-respondents, Asia Television Limited and ATV Enterprises Limited, pay four-fifths (4/5ths) of the costs of the respondent/cross-claimant, Yau's Entertainment Pty Limited, incurred in relation to both the claim by the applicants and the cross-claim against the applicants/cross-respondents."]