Mintel International Group v Mintel (Australia) Pty Ltd (No 2) [2000] FCA 1905

Mintel International Group v Mintel (Australia) Pty Ltd (No 2) [2000] FCA 1905

There were no special features justifying indemnity costs; the case falls under the ordinary rule that the unsuccessful party pays costs on a party and party basis.

Parties
Applicant: Mintel International Group Limited; First Respondent: Mintel (Australia) Pty Ltd; Second Respondent: Brent Hughes
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 December 2000
Procedural Posture
Costs Application / Post Judgment Motion
Outcome
costs awarded to applicant on party and party basis
Legal Topics
Costs, Indemnity Costs
Civil Procedure Costs Indemnity Costs

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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mintel International Group Limited

Applicant

Mintel (Australia) Pty Ltd

First Respondent

Brent Hughes

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Costs Application / Post Judgment Motion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether indemnity costs should be awarded to the applicant for the respondents' dismissed motion

Ratio Decidendi

There were no special features justifying indemnity costs; the case falls under the ordinary rule that the unsuccessful party pays costs on a party and party basis.

Court Disposition

costs awarded to applicant on party and party basis

Orders

  • The respondents pay the applicant's costs of the motion dated 26 September 2000, including reserved costs, such costs to be taxed on a party and party basis.