Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Marmax Investments Pty Ltd v RPR Maintenance Pty Ltd (No 2) [2015] FCAFC 155 Citation: Marmax Investments Pty Ltd v RPR Maintenance Pty Ltd (No 2) [2015] FCAFC 155
Appeal from: RPR Maintenance Pty Ltd v Marmax Investments Pty Ltd [2014] FCA 409 RPR Maintenance Pty Ltd v Marmax Investments Pty Ltd [2014] FCA 514
File numbers: NSD 629 of 2014 NSD 632 of 2014
Parties: MARMAX INVESTMENTS PTY LTD ACN 001 147 511 v RPR MAINTENANCE PTY LTD ACN 003 610 231 and SPANLINE WEATHERSTRONG BUILDING SYSTEMS PTY LTD ACN 002 968 087 v RPR MAINTENANCE PTY LTD ACN 003 610 231
Judges: MIDDLETON, FOSTER AND GLEESON JJ
Date of judgment: 29 October 2015
Catchwords: COSTS – no circumstances justifying departure from usual rule that costs follow the event – no issue of principle COSTS – where appeal results in modest reduction of damages payable to respondent – where reduction in damages do not warrant costs of the appeal – each party to bear its own costs of the appeal
Cases cited: Australian Conservation Foundation v Forestry Commission of Tasmania (1988) 81 ALR 166 Cadbury Schweppes Pty Ltd v Darrell Lea Chocolate Shops Pty Ltd (No 3) [2007] FCAFC 119 Cretazzo v Lombardi (1975) 13 SASR 4 Inn Leisure Industries Pty Ltd v DF McCloy Pty Ltd (No 2) (1991) 28 FCR 172 Marmax Investments Pty Ltd v RPR Maintenance Pty Ltd [2015] FCAFC 127 RPR Maintenance Pty Ltd v Marmax Investments Pty Ltd (No 2) [2012] FCA 1311 Ruddock v Vadarlis [2001] FCA 1865; (2001) 115 FCR 229
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