RPR Maintenance Pty Ltd v Marmax Investments Pty Ltd (No 2) [2012] FCA 1311

RPR Maintenance Pty Ltd v Marmax Investments Pty Ltd (No 2) [2012] FCA 1311

The first respondent had greater success in the application for interlocutory relief, despite the applicant being justified in persisting with its claim for preservation of records, thus the appropriate order is that the first respondent's costs of the interlocutory application be its costs in the cause.

Parties
Applicant: RPR Maintenance Pty Ltd (ACN 003 610 231); First Respondent: Marmax Investments Pty Ltd (ACN 001 147 511); Second Respondent: Spanline Weatherstrong Building Systems Pty Ltd (ACN 002 968 087)
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 November 2012
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Costs Determination After Partly Successful Application for Interlocutory Injunctive Relief
Outcome
The first respondent's costs of the interlocutory application are its costs in the cause.

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

RPR Maintenance Pty Ltd (ACN 003 610 231)

Applicant

Marmax Investments Pty Ltd (ACN 001 147 511)

First Respondent

Spanline Weatherstrong Building Systems Pty Ltd (ACN 002 968 087)

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application / Costs Determination After Partly Successful Application for Interlocutory Injunctive Relief

Legal Issues

  1. 1 How should costs be ordered between the applicant and the first respondent following a partly successful interlocutory application for injunctive relief?

Ratio Decidendi

The first respondent had greater success in the application for interlocutory relief, despite the applicant being justified in persisting with its claim for preservation of records, thus the appropriate order is that the first respondent's costs of the interlocutory application be its costs in the cause.

Court Disposition

The first respondent's costs of the interlocutory application are its costs in the cause.

Orders

  • The first respondent's costs of the interlocutory application filed on 8 June 2012 be its costs in the cause.