Yperion Technology SAS v Luminex Pty Ltd [2013] FCAFC 38

Yperion Technology SAS v Luminex Pty Ltd [2013] FCAFC 38

Because the appeal was not determined on its merits and the orders concerned an interlocutory, not final, order, justice was served by making the costs of the application to the primary judge and to the Full Court costs in the cause rather than attempting to predict the likely merits outcome or ordering one party to pay the other's costs.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 April 2013
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Interlocutory Stay Orders; Costs Determination Following Settlement and Consent Orders / Costs After Leave to Appeal Was Granted, Appeal Allowed by Consent and Orders of Emmett J Set Aside
Outcome
Costs ordered to be costs in the cause.
Legal Topics
['costs in the Cause' 'interlocutory Proceedings' 'stay of Proceedings' 'exclusive Jurisdiction Clause' 'consent Orders']
['civil Procedure' 'costs' 'private International Law'] ['costs in the Cause' 'interlocutory Proceedings' 'stay of Proceedings' 'exclusive Jurisdiction Clause' 'consent Orders']

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 From Interlocutory Stay Orders; Costs Determination Following Settlement and Consent Orders / Costs After Leave to Appeal Was Granted, Appeal Allowed by Consent and Orders of Emmett J Set Aside

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['What costs order should be made for the application before the primary judge and the application for leave to appeal and appeal after the parties settled the substantive dispute and the Court made consent orders.' 'Whether costs should be ordered by reference to a predicted outcome where the merits of the appeal were not determined.' 'Whether the interlocutory character of the appeal supported making costs costs in the cause.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because the appeal was not determined on its merits and the orders concerned an interlocutory, not final, order, justice was served by making the costs of the application to the primary judge and to the Full Court costs in the cause rather than attempting to predict the likely merits outcome or ordering one party to pay the other's costs.

Court Disposition

Costs ordered to be costs in the cause.

Orders

  • ['The costs of the application for leave to appeal, of the appeal and of the application for a stay of proceedings made before Emmett J be costs in the cause.']