Shepparton Partners Collective Operations Pty Ltd v QAD Inc (No 2) [2021] FCAFC 227

Shepparton Partners Collective Operations Pty Ltd v QAD Inc (No 2) [2021] FCAFC 227

Because SPC pursued an appeal in which it was not open to advance the only argument ultimately pressed and which had no chance of success, the appeal was sufficiently meritless and it was unreasonable for SPC to put QAD to the expense of defending it. The evidence did not show that QAD's claimed indemnity costs were unreasonably incurred, and the overall claimed amount of $99,473.55 was reasonable for the matter and issues at stake. A lump sum indemnity costs order was therefore appropriate.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 December 2021
Procedural Posture
Appeal Costs Determination / Determined on the Papers After Dismissal of the Appeal
Outcome
The appellant was ordered to pay the respondents' costs of the appeal on an indemnity basis, fixed as a lump sum of $99,473.55 payable within 28 days.
Legal Topics
['indemnity Costs' 'lump Sum Costs' 'costs Unreasonably Incurred' 'copyright Infringement Damages Appeal']
['costs' 'intellectual Property' 'copyright and Industrial Designs'] ['indemnity Costs' 'lump Sum Costs' 'costs Unreasonably Incurred' 'copyright Infringement Damages Appeal']

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 Costs Determination / Determined on the Papers After Dismissal of the Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the appeal was sufficiently meritless to justify indemnity costs' "Whether the respondents' claimed costs were unreasonably incurred" 'Whether costs should be awarded on a lump sum basis' 'What amount should be fixed as lump sum costs']

Ratio Decidendi

Because SPC pursued an appeal in which it was not open to advance the only argument ultimately pressed and which had no chance of success, the appeal was sufficiently meritless and it was unreasonable for SPC to put QAD to the expense of defending it. The evidence did not show that QAD's claimed indemnity costs were unreasonably incurred, and the overall claimed amount of $99,473.55 was reasonable for the matter and issues at stake. A lump sum indemnity costs order was therefore appropriate.

Court Disposition

The appellant was ordered to pay the respondents' costs of the appeal on an indemnity basis, fixed as a lump sum of $99,473.55 payable within 28 days.

Orders

  • ["The appellant pay the respondents' costs of the appeal on an indemnity basis." 'The costs in order 1 be payable on a lump sum basis.' 'The lump sum costs be fixed in the sum of $99,473.55, payable within 28 days of these orders.']