Peter Bodum A/S v DKSH Australia Pty Ltd [2010] FCA 456

Peter Bodum A/S v DKSH Australia Pty Ltd [2010] FCA 456

The application for indemnity costs was refused because Bodum's claims were not completely devoid of merit and its rejection of the Calderbank offer was not unreasonable in the context of the proceedings. Party and party costs to be paid by the applicants to the respondent, other than the costs of the defences relating to estoppel and delay and certain items; the respondent to pay the applicants' costs of those defences.

Parties
First Applicant: Peter Bodum A/S; Second Applicant: Bodum (Australia) Pty Limited (ACN 104 809 672); Third Applicant: PI-Design AG; Respondent: DKSH Australia Pty Ltd (ACN 005 059 307)
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 May 2010
Procedural Posture
Costs Application / Post Judgment; Determination of Costs
Outcome
Party and party costs for respondent except on specified issues; limited costs orders in applicants' favour on estoppel and delay defences; each party to bear own costs for the application for costs.
Legal Topics
Indemnity Costs, Party and Party Costs, Apportionment of Costs, Calderbank Offers
Costs Indemnity Costs Party and Party Costs Apportionment of Costs Calderbank Offers

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 5 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Peter Bodum A/S

First Applicant

Bodum (Australia) Pty Limited (ACN 104 809 672)

Second Applicant

PI-Design AG

Third Applicant

DKSH Australia Pty Ltd (ACN 005 059 307)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Costs Application / Post Judgment; Determination of Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether indemnity costs or party and party costs are appropriate
  2. 2 Whether apportionment of costs is appropriate

Ratio Decidendi

The application for indemnity costs was refused because Bodum's claims were not completely devoid of merit and its rejection of the Calderbank offer was not unreasonable in the context of the proceedings. Party and party costs to be paid by the applicants to the respondent, other than the costs of the defences relating to estoppel and delay and certain items; the respondent to pay the applicants' costs of those defences.

Court Disposition

Party and party costs for respondent except on specified issues; limited costs orders in applicants' favour on estoppel and delay defences; each party to bear own costs for the application for costs.

Orders

  • The applicants pay the respondent's costs of the proceeding (other than the costs of the defences relating to estoppel and delay as referred to in paragraphs 186-188 in the liability reasons for judgment, the costs associated with the preparation of the evidence of Ms Sarah Huang and the costs of and in connection...
  • The respondent pays applicants' costs of and in connection with the defences relating to estoppel and delay as referred to in paragraphs 186-188 of the liability reasons for judgment.