Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Intellectual Property Pty Ltd v MyGroups Pty Ltd [2006] FCA 835
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PTY LTD (ACN 089 962 041), RETAIL FRANCHISE SOLUTIONS PTY LTD (ACN 089 961 517) and CLARK RUBBER FRANCHISING PTY LTD (ACN 065 708 723) v MYGROUPS PTY LTD (ACN 116 583 748) and JENNIFER MAI LI
VID 60 of 2006
YOUNG J
15 JUNE 2006
MELBOURNE IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY VID 60 OF 2006
BETWEEN: INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PTY LTD (ACN 089 962 041)
FIRST APPLICANT
RETAIL FRANCHISE SOLUTIONS PTY LTD (ACN 089 961 517)
SECOND APPLICANT
CLARK RUBBER FRANCHISING PTY LTD (ACN 065 708 723)
THIRD APPLICANT
AND: MYGROUPS PTY LTD (ACN 116 583 748)
FIRST RESPONDENT
JENNIFER MAI LI
SECOND RESPONDENT
JUDGE: YOUNG J
DATE OF ORDER: 15 JUNE 2006
WHERE MADE: MELBOURNE
THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The Applicants' costs of the proceeding (including reserved costs) be taxed and paid forthwith by the Respondents.
Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY VID 60 OF 2006
BETWEEN: INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PTY LTD (ACN 089 962 041)
FIRST APPLICANT
RETAIL FRANCHISE SOLUTIONS PTY LTD (ACN 089 961 517)
SECOND APPLICANT
CLARK RUBBER FRANCHISING PTY LTD (ACN 065 708 723)
THIRD APPLICANT
AND: MYGROUPS PTY LTD (ACN 116 583 748)
FIRST RESPONDENT
JENNIFER MAI LI
SECOND RESPONDENT
JUDGE: YOUNG J
DATE: 15 JUNE 2006
PLACE: MELBOURNE
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 The applicants have been successful in obtaining both interlocutory orders and final orders in these proceedings: the final orders were made by me by consent on 22 May 2006. Those final orders reserved the question of costs for further argument and directed that the applicants and the respondents file submissions and evidence in relation to costs by prescribed dates. The orders also set down the date for a hearing on costs, being 15 June 2006. 2 Subsequently, the solicitors for the respondents filed a notice that they ceased to act for the respondents in these proceedings. That notice was dated 30 May 2006. 3 The applicant has filed three affidavits verifying service of the orders of 22 May 2006, and subsequently service of their submissions as to costs on the respondents and, in addition, on the sole director of the first respondent. The respondents did not appear at the hearing on 15 June 2006. 4 In my opinion, the costs of the proceeding should follow the event. Accordingly, I order that the applicants' costs of the proceeding, including reserve costs, be taxed and paid forthwith by the respondents. I certify that the preceding four (4) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Young.
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