Hayle Holdings Pty Ltd v Australian Technology Group Ltd [2000] FCA 1699

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Hayle Holdings Pty Ltd v Australian Technology Group Ltd [2000] FCA 1699

COSTS – apportionment of costs – whether costs should follow the event – applicant successful on only one of the thirty-one representations pleaded – whether the whole of the course of dealing between the parties was relevant to the issue on which the applicants succeeded – need for economy and efficiency in conduct of litigation – whether applicant improperly or unreasonably raised issues or made allegations – whether respondent should be liable for the applicants' costs associated with those heads of damage on which the applicant was not successful – whether applicants should be entitled to costs thrown away by reason of the respondent changing the basis of its case CAUSATION – whether the applicants' entry into the Share Sale Agreement was causally linked to the misleading and deceptive conduct - 'billiard ball' versus 'common sense' causation

Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 43(2) Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) s 87 Oshlack v Richmond River Council (1998) 193 CLR 72 applied Hughes v Western Australian Cricket Association (Inc.) (1986) ATPR 40-748 applied Australian Trade Commission v Disktravel [2000] FCA 62 cited Forster v Farquhar [1893] 1 QB 564 discussed Cretazzo v Lombardi (1975) 13 SASR 4 applied Dodds Family Investments Pty Ltd v Lane Industries Pty Ltd (1993) 26 IPR 261 discussed R v Secretary of State for Transport; ex parte Factortame Ltd [1998] EWCA 2999discussed Re Elgindata Ltd (No 2) [1993] 1 All ER 232 applied HAYLE HOLDINGS PTY LTD & ORS v AUSTRALIAN TECHNOLOGY GROUP LTD & ANOR NG 1136 OF 1998 HELY J 24 NOVEMBER 2000 SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NG 1136 OF 1998

BETWEEN: HAYLE HOLDINGS PTY LTD

FIRST APPLICANT