Wilkshire v Registrar of Trade Marks (No 2) [2009] FCA 1505

Wilkshire v Registrar of Trade Marks (No 2) [2009] FCA 1505

An indemnity costs order was warranted against the applicant due to his persistent allegations of impropriety without justification, refusal to accept advice and earlier adverse decisions, failure to honour contractual undertakings, and continuation of proceedings with no reasonable chance of success despite repeated notices and warnings.

Parties
Applicant: Peter John Wilkshire; First Respondent: Registrar of Trade Marks; Second Respondent: Bombala Council
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 December 2009
Procedural Posture
Costs Application Following Summary Dismissal / Post Judgment; Application for Indemnity Costs
Outcome
Application dismissed; indemnity costs awarded against applicant
Legal Topics
Costs, Indemnity Costs, Trade Marks, Summary Dismissal
Practice and Procedure Intellectual Property Costs Indemnity Costs Trade Marks Summary Dismissal

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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Peter John Wilkshire

Applicant

Registrar of Trade Marks

First Respondent

Bombala Council

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Costs Application Following Summary Dismissal / Post Judgment; Application for Indemnity Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether indemnity costs should be awarded against an unrepresented applicant following summary dismissal
  2. 2 Applicability of standard principles to lay litigants
  3. 3 Whether applicant was on notice proceedings had no chance of success

Ratio Decidendi

An indemnity costs order was warranted against the applicant due to his persistent allegations of impropriety without justification, refusal to accept advice and earlier adverse decisions, failure to honour contractual undertakings, and continuation of proceedings with no reasonable chance of success despite repeated notices and warnings.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; indemnity costs awarded against applicant

Orders

  • The applicant pay the second respondent's costs on an indemnity costs basis (including its costs of the motions of 19 June 2009 and of 21 September 2009).