LUXOTTICA RETAIL AUSTRALIA PTY LTD v GRANT [2009] NSWCA 378

LUXOTTICA RETAIL AUSTRALIA PTY LTD v GRANT [2009] NSWCA 378

Leave was refused because the applicant raised no issue as to the formulation of principle and failed to show an error that would materially have affected the outcome; the costs order was available on the basis that refusal of the 17 February 2009 offer, which conceded substantially the relief ultimately obtained but did not offer costs, was unreasonable.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 November 2009
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal Against a Costs Order / Court of Appeal Leave Application
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['discretionary Costs Order' 'offer of Settlement' 'costs Following the Event' 'leave to Appeal' 'nominal Damages for Copyright Infringement']
['costs' 'civil Procedure' 'appellate Procedure' 'copyright'] ['discretionary Costs Order' 'offer of Settlement' 'costs Following the Event' 'leave to Appeal' 'nominal Damages for Copyright Infringement']

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

Application for Leave to Appeal Against a Costs Order / Court of Appeal Leave Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether leave should be granted to appeal against the discretionary costs order made by White J on 31 July 2009.' 'Whether the primary judge applied the wrong principle in deciding that the plaintiff was not entitled to its costs as at 17 February 2009.' 'Whether refusal of the 17 February 2009 offer was unreasonable and justified the costs order made.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the applicant raised no issue as to the formulation of principle and failed to show an error that would materially have affected the outcome; the costs order was available on the basis that refusal of the 17 February 2009 offer, which conceded substantially the relief ultimately obtained but did not offer costs, was unreasonable.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['Dismiss the application for leave to appeal against the costs order made by White J on 31 July 2009.' "Order that the applicant pay the respondents' costs of the application in this Court."]