Hanisch, Graeme Arthur v Strive Pty Ltd & Ors [1997] FCA 303

Hanisch, Graeme Arthur v Strive Pty Ltd & Ors [1997] FCA 303

The proceeding involved simple issues and a modest potential monetary recovery, and should have been brought in the District Court, which had jurisdiction and power to grant the relief sought. Because no party provided material enabling a specific dollar cap to be fixed, the appropriate O 62A order was to limit recoverable party and party costs for whichever party succeeded to the comparable District Court scale, with Federal Court filing and other fees added and the hearing costs assessed on the Federal Court scale. O 62A required the limitation to operate equally between applicant and respondents.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 April 1997
Procedural Posture
Copyright Infringement Proceeding; Application for Costs Limitation Order Under O 62 a of the Federal Court Rules / Reasons and Orders Following Hearing on Costs Budget Order
Outcome
Costs limitation order made under O 62A of the Federal Court Rules applying to both the applicant and the respondents.
Legal Topics
['limitation of Costs' 'costs Budget Order' 'party and Party Costs' 'copyright Infringement' 'district Court Jurisdiction']
['practice and Procedure' 'costs' 'copyright'] ['limitation of Costs' 'costs Budget Order' 'party and Party Costs' 'copyright Infringement' 'district Court Jurisdiction']

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

Copyright Infringement Proceeding; Application for Costs Limitation Order Under O 62 a of the Federal Court Rules / Reasons and Orders Following Hearing on Costs Budget Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether a costs budget order should be made under O 62A of the Federal Court Rules in a simple copyright infringement proceeding involving modest monetary compensation.' 'Whether the proceeding ought to have been brought in the District Court rather than the Federal Court.' "Whether the costs limitation order should apply equally to both parties or only limit the applicant's recoverable costs." 'Whether the District Court had power to grant all relief sought, including an account of profits.']

Ratio Decidendi

The proceeding involved simple issues and a modest potential monetary recovery, and should have been brought in the District Court, which had jurisdiction and power to grant the relief sought. Because no party provided material enabling a specific dollar cap to be fixed, the appropriate O 62A order was to limit recoverable party and party costs for whichever party succeeded to the comparable District Court scale, with Federal Court filing and other fees added and the hearing costs assessed on the Federal Court scale. O 62A required the limitation to operate equally between applicant and respondents.

Court Disposition

Costs limitation order made under O 62A of the Federal Court Rules applying to both the applicant and the respondents.

Orders

  • ['The maximum costs that may be recovered on a party and party basis by either the applicant or the respondents shall be those which would have been recoverable by that party, pursuant to items 1 to 101 and item 105 of the scale of fees and costs in Schedule 2 to the District Court Rules, if this action had been...