Federal Court of Australia
Federal Court of Australia
Hood v Down Under Enterprises International Pty Limited (No 2) [2022] FCAFC 106 Appeal from: Hood v Bush Pharmacy Pty Ltd [2020] FCA 1686 Hood v Bush Pharmacy Pty Ltd (No 2) [2021] FCA 138
File numbers: NSD 265 of 2021 NSD 266 of 2021
Judgment of: YATES, MOSHINSKY AND ROFE JJ
Date of judgment: 22 June 2022
Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – costs – offer to compromise – Calderbank offer – whether unreasonable to fail to accept offer – appropriate order as to costs in relation to cross-claim involving two distinct issues – where each side successful in relation to one of those issues
Legislation: Federal Court Rules 2011, rr 25.01, 25.14
Cases cited: Anchorage Capital Partners Pty Ltd v ACPA Pty Ltd (No 2) [2018] FCAFC 112 Davies v Lazer Safe Pty Ltd (No 2) [2019] FCAFC 118 GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Healthcare Investments (Ireland) (No 2) Ltd v Generic Partners Pty Ltd (No 2) [2018] FCAFC 100 Kimberly-Clark Australia Pty Ltd v Multigate Medical Products Pty Ltd [2011] FCAFC 86 State Street Global Advisors Trust Company v Maurice Blackburn Pty Ltd (2022) 399 ALR 704 Wills v Chief Executive Officer of the Australian Skills Quality Authority (Costs) [2022] FCAFC 43
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