Melbourne University Publishing Ltd v Williamson [2005] FCA 1910

Melbourne University Publishing Ltd v Williamson [2005] FCA 1910

Because no letter of demand or other notice was given before serving the application, and it was likely that a demand would have led to the same common sense resolution without incurring proceeding costs, the respondent should not be ordered to pay the applicants' costs.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 December 2005
Procedural Posture
Claim for Infringement of Copyright / Consent Judgment; Dispute as to Costs
Outcome
Consent orders made for copyright infringement relief, but no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
['copyright Infringement' 'consent Orders' 'letter of Demand Before Proceedings' 'unjustified Threats' 'party and Party Costs']
['copyright' 'civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['copyright Infringement' 'consent Orders' 'letter of Demand Before Proceedings' 'unjustified Threats' '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

Claim for Infringement of Copyright / Consent Judgment; Dispute as to Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the respondent should pay the applicants' costs where the application was served without notice and no letter of demand was sent before action."]

Ratio Decidendi

Because no letter of demand or other notice was given before serving the application, and it was likely that a demand would have led to the same common sense resolution without incurring proceeding costs, the respondent should not be ordered to pay the applicants' costs.

Court Disposition

Consent orders made for copyright infringement relief, but no order as to costs.

Orders

  • ['The court grants leave to the applicants to file and serve the amended application that was placed on the court file and served on the respondents on 14 November 2005.' 'The respondent, whether by himself or his employees, agents or howsoever otherwise, be restrained from, without licence of the relevant...