Reckitt Benckiser (Australia) Pty Ltd v GlaxoSmithKline Australia Pty Ltd (No 2) [2018] FCAFC 153

Reckitt Benckiser (Australia) Pty Ltd v GlaxoSmithKline Australia Pty Ltd (No 2) [2018] FCAFC 153

The Court found the rejection of the offer was not unreasonable because the appeal was genuinely arguable, commercially significant to the appellant, and the quantum of costs was not provided. Therefore, indemnity costs were not warranted and only party and party costs were ordered.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 September 2018
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Post Judgment Application for Costs
Outcome
Appellant ordered to pay respondents' costs of the appeal on a party and party basis.
Legal Topics
['indemnity Costs' 'offer of Compromise' 'party and Party Costs']
['costs' 'civil Procedure' 'consumer Law'] ['indemnity Costs' 'offer of Compromise' 'party and Party 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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Post Judgment Application for Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the appellant's rejection of an offer of compromise was unreasonable for the purposes of indemnity costs under the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), r 25.14"]

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found the rejection of the offer was not unreasonable because the appeal was genuinely arguable, commercially significant to the appellant, and the quantum of costs was not provided. Therefore, indemnity costs were not warranted and only party and party costs were ordered.

Court Disposition

Appellant ordered to pay respondents' costs of the appeal on a party and party basis.

Orders

  • ["The appellant pay the respondents' costs of the appeal on a party and party basis."]