Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Australian Safeway Stores Pty Limited (No 3) [2002] FCA 1294
COSTS – where successful respondent had made offer of compromise which was rejected – where unsuccessful applicant was successful on some aspects of case– whether successful respondents entitled to costs incurred following rejection of offer of compromise on an indemnity basis – whether unsuccessful applicant's refusal of offer of compromise was unreasonable or imprudent – whether part of unsuccessful applicant's case was maintained in wilful disregard of available evidence or involved groundless contentions which unduly prolonged case – whether award of costs to successful respondents should be reduced to reflect fact they were unsuccessful on some aspects of case. EVIDENCE – whether "without prejudice" communications admissible on questions of costs – effect of s 131(2)(h) Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) on admissibility of "without prejudice" communications. Evidence Act 1995 (Cth): s 131(2)(h)
Bruinsma v Menczer (1995) 40 NSWLR 716, considered
Marks v GIO Australia Holdings Ltd (No 2) (1996) 66 FCR 128, considered Nobrega v Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church for the Archdiocese of Sydney (No 2) [1999] NSWCA 133, considered NMFM Property Pty Ltd v Citibank Ltd (No 2) (2000) 109 FCR 77, applied Colgate‑Palmolive Company v Cussons Pty Limited (1993) 46 FCR 225, referred to Re Wilcox; Ex parte Venture Industries Pty Ltd (No 2) (1996) 72 FCR 151, referred to Ruddock v Vadarlis (2002) 188 ALR 143, referred to Walker v Wilsher (1889) 23 QBD 335, referred to Rabin v Mendoza & Co [1954] 1 WLR 271, referred to Cutts v Head [1984] Ch 290, referred to Rodgers v Rodgers (1964) 114 CLR 608, referred to Rush Tompkins Ltd v Greater London Council [1989] AC 1280, referred to Field v Commissioner for Railways for New South Wales (1957) 99 CLR 285, referred to Hughes v Western Australian Cricket Association (Inc) (1986) ATPR 40‑748, applied Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Boral Limited (No 2) (2000) ATPR 41‑738, applied Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Australian Safeway Stores Pty Limited (No 2) [2001] FCA 1861; (2002) ATPR (Digest) 46-215, referred to Queensland Wire Industries Proprietary Limited v The Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited (1989) 167 CLR 177, applied Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Australian Safeway Stores Pty Limited [1999] FCA 1269, 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