Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Howards Storage World Pty Ltd v Haviv Holdings Pty Ltd [2010] FCAFC 5 Citation: Howards Storage World Pty Ltd v Haviv Holdings Pty Ltd [2010] FCAFC 5
Appeal from: Haviv Holdings Pty Limited v Howards Storage World Pty Limited (No 2) [2009] FCA 652
Parties: HOWARDS STORAGE WORLD PTY LTD (ACN 094 719 490), PLAZA HOME-IMPORTS PTY LTD (ACN 069 891 201) and DIRK SPENCE v HAVIV HOLDINGS PTY LIMITED (ACN 101 265 730) and PAUL AGHION
File number: NSD 665 of 2009
Judges: GRAY, LINDGREN AND EDMONDS JJ
Date of judgment: 8 February 2010
Catchwords: COSTS – multiple claims – where applicant succeeded on only one claim – whether costs should follow the event – whether it was appropriate to apply the "rule of thumb" to apportion costs between the parties – the award of costs is in the discretion of the Court – no error has been identified in the manner in which costs were awarded. Held: the appeal be dismissed.
Legislation: Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 43(2)
Cases cited: Currabubula Holdings Pty Ltd v State Bank of New South Wales [2000] NSWSC 232considered Dansk Rekylriffel Syndikat Aktieselskab v Snell [1908] 2 Ch 127considered Dodds Family Investments Pty Ltd (formerly Solar Tint Pty Ltd) v Lane Industries Pty Ltd (1993) 26 IPR 261 referred to Elite Protective Personnel Pty Ltd & Anor v Salmon (No 2) [2007] NSWCA 373referred to House v R (1936) 55 CLR 499 applied Haviv Holdings Pty Limited v Howards Storage World Pty Ltd (2009) 254 ALR 273 cited Haviv Holdings Pty Limited v Howards Storage World Pty Limited (No 2) [2009] FCA 652 cited Hughes v Western Australia Cricket Association (1986) ATPR 40-748 referred to Jeffery & Katauskas Pty Limited v SST Consulting Pty Ltd; Jeffery & Katauskas Pty Limited v Rickard Constructions Pty Limited [2009] HCA 43 cited Korner v H Korner & Co Ltd [1951] Ch 10considered Milne v Attorney General (Tas) (1956) 95 CLR 460 referred to Oshlack v Richmond River Council (1998) 193 CLR 72considered Ruddock v Vadarlis (No 2) (2001) 115 FCR 229 referred to
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate