Butorac v WIN Corporation Pty Ltd (No 2) [2010] FCA 160

Butorac v WIN Corporation Pty Ltd (No 2) [2010] FCA 160

As there was no clear victor in the motion and it constituted an introductory skirmish in the overall proceedings, the appropriate order is that costs of the motion be costs in the cause.

Parties
Applicant: David Butorac; First Respondent: WIN Corporation Pty Ltd (ACN 000 737 404); Second Respondent: Bruce Gordon
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 March 2010
Procedural Posture
Application and Statement of Claim for Breach of Statute and Contract / Costs Order Following Summary Dismissal Motion
Outcome
Costs of the motion are costs in the cause.
Legal Topics
Trade Practices Act 1974, Breach of Contract, Costs of Summary Dismissal Motion
Commercial Law Trade Practices Act 1974 Breach of Contract Costs of Summary Dismissal Motion

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Butorac

Applicant

WIN Corporation Pty Ltd (ACN 000 737 404)

First Respondent

Bruce Gordon

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application and Statement of Claim for Breach of Statute and Contract / Costs Order Following Summary Dismissal Motion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Entitlement to costs following partial success in summary dismissal motion

Ratio Decidendi

As there was no clear victor in the motion and it constituted an introductory skirmish in the overall proceedings, the appropriate order is that costs of the motion be costs in the cause.

Court Disposition

Costs of the motion are costs in the cause.

Orders

  • The costs of the motion filed on 19 November 2009 be costs in the cause.