Woolworths Limited v Mark Konrad Olson & Anor [2004] NSWSC 896

Woolworths Limited v Mark Konrad Olson & Anor [2004] NSWSC 896

The interests of justice required indemnity costs for Woolworths' costs of obtaining and executing the Anton Pillar order because the relief was obtained in entirely justifiable and extraordinary circumstances and the defendants' objections to that procedure had been rejected. Mr Olson's fabricated evidence on a critical issue and the calculated forensic decision not to call Ms Macdonald, which led to the application to reopen, justified indemnity costs for identified parts of the proceedings. For the remaining costs, a global order that Mr Olson pay 30 percent of Woolworths' costs on an indemnity basis appropriately reflected Woolworths' successes and Mr Olson's failures on the...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 September 2004
Procedural Posture
Equity Division Commercial List Proceedings Concerning Costs, Copyright, Confidential Information, Employment Restraint and Relief Under S 106 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 (nsw) / After Reserved Judgment, Before the Court for Costs and Short Minutes of Order
Outcome
Indemnity costs orders were made against the First Defendant in respect of identified sections of the proceedings; the claim against the Second Defendant was discontinued with no order as to costs; the amended cross-claim and amended s 106 summons were dismissed.
Legal Topics
['indemnity Costs' 'anton Pillar Orders' 'confidential Information' 'copyright Infringement' 'executive Service Agreement' 'section 106 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 (nsw)' 'application to Reopen Case']
['costs' 'equity' 'civil Procedure' 'intellectual Property' 'employment and Industrial Relations'] ['indemnity Costs' 'anton Pillar Orders' 'confidential Information' 'copyright Infringement' 'executive Service Agreement' 'section 106 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 (nsw)' 'application to Reopen Case']

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

Equity Division Commercial List Proceedings Concerning Costs, Copyright, Confidential Information, Employment Restraint and Relief Under S 106 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 (nsw) / After Reserved Judgment, Before the Court for Costs and Short Minutes of Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether indemnity costs should be ordered for Woolworths' costs of obtaining and executing the Anton Pillar order." "Whether Mr Olson's fabricated evidence and conduct in relation to reopening the case justified indemnity costs." 'How costs should be allocated where Woolworths obtained some relief and Mr Olson failed on the amended cross-claim and amended s 106 summons, but Woolworths did not obtain all relief sought.']

Ratio Decidendi

The interests of justice required indemnity costs for Woolworths' costs of obtaining and executing the Anton Pillar order because the relief was obtained in entirely justifiable and extraordinary circumstances and the defendants' objections to that procedure had been rejected. Mr Olson's fabricated evidence on a critical issue and the calculated forensic decision not to call Ms Macdonald, which led to the application to reopen, justified indemnity costs for identified parts of the proceedings. For the remaining costs, a global order that Mr Olson pay 30 percent of Woolworths' costs on an indemnity basis appropriately reflected Woolworths' successes and Mr Olson's failures on the...

Court Disposition

Indemnity costs orders were made against the First Defendant in respect of identified sections of the proceedings; the claim against the Second Defendant was discontinued with no order as to costs; the amended cross-claim and amended s 106 summons were dismissed.

Orders

  • ["The Plaintiff's claim against the Second Defendant is discontinued, with no order as to costs." 'Copyright subsists in the original works identified in Appendix 1 to the Orders.' 'The Plaintiff is the owner and exclusive licensee of the copyright subsisting in the Works.' "The First Defendant infringed the...