Leonie’s Travel Pty Limited v International Air Transport Association (No 2) [2009] FCA 646

Leonie’s Travel Pty Limited v International Air Transport Association (No 2) [2009] FCA 646

Declaratory and injunctive relief were refused because the contravening conduct by Qantas was wholly historical, had ceased, and no practical consequences for the parties would arise from the making of such orders. While the applicant succeeded on the trade practices aspect, this was essentially a matter of historical record and did not warrant discretionary relief. As to costs, although Qantas was overall successful and the usual rule is that costs follow the event, an adjustment was made due to some success by the applicant on certain issues, resulting in an order that the applicant pay 85% of Qantas's costs.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 June 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil / Post Judgment Application for Declaratory, Injunctive Relief, and Costs
Outcome
Application as against the second respondent dismissed; applicant to pay 85% of the second respondent's costs.
Legal Topics
['declaratory Relief' 'injunctive Relief' 'costs Application' 'misleading and Deceptive Conduct']
['practice and Procedure' 'competition and Consumer Law'] ['declaratory Relief' 'injunctive Relief' 'costs Application' 'misleading and Deceptive Conduct']

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

Civil / Post Judgment Application for Declaratory, Injunctive Relief, and Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Court should exercise its discretion to grant declaratory relief regarding contravention of s 52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth)' 'Whether injunctive relief should be granted when there is no evidence of current or likely future contravention' 'How the discretion to award and apportion costs should be exercised']

Ratio Decidendi

Declaratory and injunctive relief were refused because the contravening conduct by Qantas was wholly historical, had ceased, and no practical consequences for the parties would arise from the making of such orders. While the applicant succeeded on the trade practices aspect, this was essentially a matter of historical record and did not warrant discretionary relief. As to costs, although Qantas was overall successful and the usual rule is that costs follow the event, an adjustment was made due to some success by the applicant on certain issues, resulting in an order that the applicant pay 85% of Qantas's costs.

Court Disposition

Application as against the second respondent dismissed; applicant to pay 85% of the second respondent's costs.

Orders

  • ['The application as against the second respondent (Qantas Airways Ltd) be dismissed.' "The applicant pay eighty five per cent of the second respondent's costs of the application."]