Manolo Blahnik Worldwide Limited v Estro Concept Pty Limited (No 2) [2020] FCA 1821

Manolo Blahnik Worldwide Limited v Estro Concept Pty Limited (No 2) [2020] FCA 1821

Manolo Blahnik was required to pay Estro's reasonable costs and expenses of providing the ordered discovery because that was the ordinary consequence of obtaining preliminary discovery for Manolo Blahnik's benefit and was not opposed. On the costs of the Application, Estro had opposed the Application and attempted to thwart it, but Manolo Blahnik achieved only limited success, obtaining discovery in only two of five categories and failing to obtain r 7.22 examination relief. It was therefore appropriate for Estro to pay only 30% of Manolo Blahnik's costs of the Application, without deferring the costs question.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 December 2020
Procedural Posture
Application for Preliminary Discovery Pursuant to R 7.22 and R 7.23 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (cth) / Costs Determination on the Papers Following Orders Made on 29 October 2020
Outcome
Prospective applicant ordered to pay the prospective respondent's reasonable costs and expenses of providing discovery and production; prospective respondent ordered to pay 30% of the prospective applicant's costs of the application.
Legal Topics
['preliminary Discovery' 'examination of Proper Officer' 'discovery of Documents' 'costs of Preliminary Discovery' 'costs Discretion']
['civil Procedure' 'costs' 'intellectual Property' 'trade Marks'] ['preliminary Discovery' 'examination of Proper Officer' 'discovery of Documents' 'costs of Preliminary Discovery' 'costs Discretion']

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 Preliminary Discovery Pursuant to R 7.22 and R 7.23 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (cth) / Costs Determination on the Papers Following Orders Made on 29 October 2020

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the prospective applicant should pay the prospective respondent's reasonable costs and expenses of providing discovery and production ordered under r 7.23 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth)." "Whether either party should pay the costs of the preliminary discovery application, and in what proportion, having regard to the prospective applicant's limited success and the prospective respondent's opposition to the application."]

Ratio Decidendi

Manolo Blahnik was required to pay Estro's reasonable costs and expenses of providing the ordered discovery because that was the ordinary consequence of obtaining preliminary discovery for Manolo Blahnik's benefit and was not opposed. On the costs of the Application, Estro had opposed the Application and attempted to thwart it, but Manolo Blahnik achieved only limited success, obtaining discovery in only two of five categories and failing to obtain r 7.22 examination relief. It was therefore appropriate for Estro to pay only 30% of Manolo Blahnik's costs of the Application, without deferring the costs question.

Court Disposition

Prospective applicant ordered to pay the prospective respondent's reasonable costs and expenses of providing discovery and production; prospective respondent ordered to pay 30% of the prospective applicant's costs of the application.

Orders

  • ["Pursuant to r 7.29(b) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), the prospective applicant is to pay the prospective respondent's reasonable costs and expenses of providing discovery and production in accordance with Order 1 of the Orders made on 29 October 2020." "The prospective respondent is to pay 30% of the...