Jimik Investments Pty Ltd v Registrar of Trade Marks [2003] FCA 765

Jimik Investments Pty Ltd v Registrar of Trade Marks [2003] FCA 765

The applicant was not entitled to general costs of the proceeding because the Court had never reached a final conclusion about the availability of relief under the ADJR Act or whether the delegate erred. However, the applicant was entitled to costs up to and including 21 December 1999 because it successfully obtained interlocutory relief on that date over the opposition of the third respondent. No costs order should be made against the second respondent for that hearing because he was not involved, and no order should be made for later costs because those costs related to mentions and delays outside the proceeding before the Court.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 July 2003
Procedural Posture
Appeal Against a Decision of the Registrar of Trade Marks; Application for Costs / Reasons for Judgment on Costs After Orders Disposing of the Matter With Liberty to Apply
Outcome
The third respondent was ordered to pay the applicant's costs incurred up to and including the hearing on 21 December 1999, with no order as to any other costs.
Legal Topics
['opposition to Trade Mark Application' 'adjournment or Postponement of Administrative Hearing' 'interlocutory Relief' 'costs Following Interlocutory Proceedings' 'administrative Decisions (judicial Review) Act 1977']
['trade Marks' 'administrative Law' 'civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['opposition to Trade Mark Application' 'adjournment or Postponement of Administrative Hearing' 'interlocutory Relief' 'costs Following Interlocutory Proceedings' 'administrative Decisions (judicial Review) Act 1977']

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

Appeal Against a Decision of the Registrar of Trade Marks; Application for Costs / Reasons for Judgment on Costs After Orders Disposing of the Matter With Liberty to Apply

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicant should receive its costs of the proceeding from the second and third respondents.' 'Whether general costs should be awarded on the basis that costs follow the event where no final conclusion was reached on the availability of relief under the ADJR Act or error by the delegate.' 'Whether the applicant should receive costs incurred up to and including the interlocutory hearing on 21 December 1999.']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant was not entitled to general costs of the proceeding because the Court had never reached a final conclusion about the availability of relief under the ADJR Act or whether the delegate erred. However, the applicant was entitled to costs up to and including 21 December 1999 because it successfully obtained interlocutory relief on that date over the opposition of the third respondent. No costs order should be made against the second respondent for that hearing because he was not involved, and no order should be made for later costs because those costs related to mentions and delays outside the proceeding before the Court.

Court Disposition

The third respondent was ordered to pay the applicant's costs incurred up to and including the hearing on 21 December 1999, with no order as to any other costs.

Orders

  • ['The third respondent, Oliver Thöne, pay to the applicant, Jimik Investments Pty Ltd, the costs incurred by the said applicant in respect of the proceeding up to and including the hearing on 21 December 1999.' 'There be no order in respect of any other costs incurred by any party.']