Sealed Air Australia Pty Limited v Aus-Lid Enterprises Pty Ltd [2020] FCA 388

Sealed Air Australia Pty Limited v Aus-Lid Enterprises Pty Ltd [2020] FCA 388

Indemnity costs awarded from 30 March 2017 as applicant obtained a judgment more favourable than the offer to compromise under r 25.01, and no proper reason was shown to rebut r 25.14(3). Pre-judgment interest awarded under s 51A from specified dates. No discount applied to costs award, as failed or abandoned claims did not greatly extend the proceeding.

Parties
Applicant: Sealed Air Australia Pty Limited; First Respondent: Aus-Lid Enterprises Pty Ltd; Second Respondent: Auslid Operations Pty Ltd; Third Respondent: Ashlyn Graeme de Souza; Fourth Respondent: Visy Packaging Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 March 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil / Post Trial, Costs and Interest Ruling
Outcome
Judgment for applicant against first and fourth respondents; claims against second respondent dismissed; specific orders for costs and interest.
Legal Topics
Indemnity Costs, Offer to Compromise, Breach of Contract, Procurement and Inducement of Breach, Interest on Judgments
Intellectual Property Contract Tort Indemnity Costs Offer to Compromise Breach of Contract Procurement and Inducement of Breach Interest on Judgments

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 3 Authorities cited 35 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sealed Air Australia Pty Limited

Applicant

Aus-Lid Enterprises Pty Ltd

First Respondent

Auslid Operations Pty Ltd

Second Respondent

Ashlyn Graeme de Souza

Third Respondent

Visy Packaging Pty Ltd

Fourth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil / Post Trial, Costs and Interest Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether indemnity costs are payable after rejection of offers of compromise
  2. 2 Whether indemnity costs are payable due to 'foredoomed to fail' defence
  3. 3 Effect of r 25.14 of Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth)

Ratio Decidendi

Indemnity costs awarded from 30 March 2017 as applicant obtained a judgment more favourable than the offer to compromise under r 25.01, and no proper reason was shown to rebut r 25.14(3). Pre-judgment interest awarded under s 51A from specified dates. No discount applied to costs award, as failed or abandoned claims did not greatly extend the proceeding.

Court Disposition

Judgment for applicant against first and fourth respondents; claims against second respondent dismissed; specific orders for costs and interest.

Orders

  • Judgment for applicant against first respondent in sum of $1,756,740.88 ($1,316,971 damages, $439,769.88 interest)
  • Judgment for applicant against fourth respondent in sum of $2,152,400.21 ($1,635,417 damages, $516,983.21 interest)