Digga Australia Pty Ltd v Norm Engineering Pty Ltd (No 2) [2008] FCAFC 76

The judgment obtained by the applicant (Norm) was less favourable than the respondent's (Digga's) offer of compromise, thus the court applied O 23 r 11(5) and ordered that the applicant pay the respondent's costs on an indemnity basis after the relevant time.

Jurisdiction: Australia
Judgment Date: 14 May 2008
Procedural Posture: Civil Appeal / Post Appeal, Costs Determination
Outcome: Appeal allowed in part. Costs orders as per O 23 r 11(5) against applicant.
Legal Topics: ['copyright Infringement' 'costs' 'offers of Compromise']

['intellectual Property' 'civil Procedure'] ['copyright Infringement' 'costs' 'offers of Compromise']

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

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Post Appeal, Costs Determination

Legal Issues

1 ["Whether the judgment obtained by the applicant was more favourable than the terms of the respondent's offer of compromise under O 23 of the Federal Court Rules (Cth)" 'The appropriate costs order under O 23 r 11(5) given mixed success and the nature of the offer made']

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part. Costs orders as per O 23 r 11(5) against applicant.

Orders

["Paragraph (b) of the declarations made on 25 May 2007 set aside and replaced with a declaration that the appellant infringed the respondent's copyright in the Pivot Arms Drawing by reproduction between 2 December 2003 and 17 June 2004." 'Appellant to pay respondent $100.00 damages for infringement of copyright...