Nokia Corporation v Cellular Line Australia Pty Ltd (No 2) [2006] FCA 980

Nokia Corporation v Cellular Line Australia Pty Ltd (No 2) [2006] FCA 980

Because summary judgment had been ordered for the applicant and no respondent established special circumstances justifying departure from the ordinary rule, the respondents were required to pay the applicant's costs of the motion. The costs were apportioned according to the evidence of Mr Merrick and the scale of the case against each respondent: 60% to the first and second respondents jointly and severally, 20% to the third respondent, and 20% to the fourth respondent, with the fourth respondent's share reduced to exclude costs of preparing evidence of admitted sales of counterfeit products after 24 February 2006.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 August 2006
Procedural Posture
Costs Decision Following Summary Judgment Motion / Determination of Costs After Summary Judgment for the Applicant
Outcome
The respondents were ordered to pay the applicant's costs of the motion, with costs apportioned among them.
Legal Topics
['costs Following the Event' 'apportionment of Costs Among Respondents' 'summary Judgment' 'counterfeit Products' 'trade Mark Infringement']
['civil Procedure' 'costs' 'intellectual Property'] ['costs Following the Event' 'apportionment of Costs Among Respondents' 'summary Judgment' 'counterfeit Products' 'trade Mark 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

Costs Decision Following Summary Judgment Motion / Determination of Costs After Summary Judgment for the Applicant

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether costs should follow the event after summary judgment was ordered for the applicant.' 'Whether any special circumstances justified departing from the ordinary rule as to costs for the third or fourth respondent.' 'Whether costs should be apportioned among the respondents and, if so, in what proportions.' 'Whether costs orders against the first and second respondents should bind them jointly and severally.' "Whether the fourth respondent's admissions meant he should not bear costs of evidence directed to admitted sales after his Defence was filed."]

Ratio Decidendi

Because summary judgment had been ordered for the applicant and no respondent established special circumstances justifying departure from the ordinary rule, the respondents were required to pay the applicant's costs of the motion. The costs were apportioned according to the evidence of Mr Merrick and the scale of the case against each respondent: 60% to the first and second respondents jointly and severally, 20% to the third respondent, and 20% to the fourth respondent, with the fourth respondent's share reduced to exclude costs of preparing evidence of admitted sales of counterfeit products after 24 February 2006.

Court Disposition

The respondents were ordered to pay the applicant's costs of the motion, with costs apportioned among them.

Orders

  • ["Subject to order 2, the respondents pay the applicant's costs of the motion, notice of which was filed on 24 February 2006." "The costs of the applicant be apportioned between the respondents as follows: (a) 60 per cent be paid by the first and second respondents; (b) 20 per cent be paid by the third respondent;...