Cultivaust Pty Ltd v Grain Pool Pty Ltd [2004] FCA 1568

Cultivaust Pty Ltd v Grain Pool Pty Ltd [2004] FCA 1568

The applicants, having failed in their claims, should pay the first respondent's costs generally on a party and party basis. Indemnity costs were appropriate only for costs shown to have been incurred solely in respect of the breach of contract claim, the estoppel claim, and the unlawful interference claim insofar as it related to dealing with the New South Wales Grains Board, because those claims were speculative or not maintainable, or indemnity costs were not opposed. Indemnity costs were not justified for the PVR infringement claim or breach of fiduciary duty claim. The second respondent was entitled to party and party costs because it was required to participate after consolidation,...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 December 2004
Procedural Posture
Costs Application in Consolidated Federal Court Proceeding / After Judgment Dismissing the Applicants' Claims, With Costs Reserved for Further Argument
Outcome
Applicants ordered to pay the first respondent's costs generally on a party and party basis, indemnity costs for specified claims, and the second respondent's costs on a party and party basis.
Legal Topics
['party and Party Costs' 'indemnity Costs' 'calderbank Offer' 'costs Discretion' 'apportioning Costs on an Issues Basis' 'model Litigant' "plant Breeder's Rights Infringement"]
['civil Procedure' 'costs' "plant Breeder's Rights" 'constitutional Law' 'trade Practices'] ['party and Party Costs' 'indemnity Costs' 'calderbank Offer' 'costs Discretion' 'apportioning Costs on an Issues Basis' 'model Litigant' "plant Breeder's Rights 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 Application in Consolidated Federal Court Proceeding / After Judgment Dismissing the Applicants' Claims, With Costs Reserved for Further Argument

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the first respondent should receive indemnity costs for particular claims or only party and party costs' "Whether rejection of the first respondent's offer of compromise justified indemnity costs" "Whether the applicants should pay the second respondent's costs of the proceedings" 'Whether costs should be apportioned on an issues basis for laches and s 47A of the Limitation Act 1935 (WA)']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants, having failed in their claims, should pay the first respondent's costs generally on a party and party basis. Indemnity costs were appropriate only for costs shown to have been incurred solely in respect of the breach of contract claim, the estoppel claim, and the unlawful interference claim insofar as it related to dealing with the New South Wales Grains Board, because those claims were speculative or not maintainable, or indemnity costs were not opposed. Indemnity costs were not justified for the PVR infringement claim or breach of fiduciary duty claim. The second respondent was entitled to party and party costs because it was required to participate after consolidation,...

Court Disposition

Applicants ordered to pay the first respondent's costs generally on a party and party basis, indemnity costs for specified claims, and the second respondent's costs on a party and party basis.

Orders

  • ['Subject to paragraph 2, the applicants pay to the first respondent costs of the proceedings, including reserved costs on a party and party basis.' 'The applicants pay to the first respondent costs in respect of the breach of contract claim, the estoppel claim, and the unlawful interference claim only insofar as...