Howden Australia Pty Ltd v Minetek Investments Pty Ltd [2019] FCA 1042

Howden Australia Pty Ltd v Minetek Investments Pty Ltd [2019] FCA 1042

The respondents' adjournment application did not increase the overall length of the hearing, so the applicants were not entitled to costs of the adjournment. Because the substantive dispute about use of the applicants' confidential information could only be determined at the final hearing, the appropriate order was that the costs of the interlocutory application be the respondents' costs in the cause.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 July 2019
Procedural Posture
Costs of Interlocutory Application / Determined on the Papers After Dismissal of the Applicants' Application for Interlocutory Relief
Outcome
The costs of the interlocutory application were ordered to be the respondents' costs in the cause.
Legal Topics
['costs of Interlocutory Application' 'costs in the Cause' 'adjournment of Hearing' 'confidential Information' 'prima Facie Case' 'balance of Convenience']
['costs' 'intellectual Property'] ['costs of Interlocutory Application' 'costs in the Cause' 'adjournment of Hearing' 'confidential Information' 'prima Facie Case' 'balance of Convenience']

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 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Costs of Interlocutory Application / Determined on the Papers After Dismissal of the Applicants' Application for Interlocutory Relief

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the respondents' adjournment application increased the overall length of the hearing." 'Whether the applicants should receive costs of the adjournment and further hearing day.' "Whether the costs of the interlocutory application should be the respondents' costs in the cause."]

Ratio Decidendi

The respondents' adjournment application did not increase the overall length of the hearing, so the applicants were not entitled to costs of the adjournment. Because the substantive dispute about use of the applicants' confidential information could only be determined at the final hearing, the appropriate order was that the costs of the interlocutory application be the respondents' costs in the cause.

Court Disposition

The costs of the interlocutory application were ordered to be the respondents' costs in the cause.

Orders

  • ["The costs of the interlocutory application be the respondents' costs in the cause."]