Nokia Corporation v Cellular Line Australia Pty Ltd (No 2) [2006] FCA 980

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Nokia Corporation v Cellular Line Australia Pty Ltd (No 2) [2006] FCA 980 Costs– whether costs should follow the event – apportionment of costs among respondents

Nokia Corporation v Cellular Line Australia Pty Ltd [2006] FCA 726 referred to Gladstone Park Shopping Centre Pty Ltd v Ross Wills (1984) 6 FCR 496 referred to Oshlack v Richmond River Council (1998) 193 CLR 72 referred to Calderbank v Calderbank [1975] 3 All ER 333 referred to NOKIA CORPORATION v CELLULAR LINE AUSTRALIA PTY LTD (ACN 093 296 694), ABBAS ZEITOUN, TUNCAY AKYILDIZ AND ERIC SOO WOONG KIM VID 1484 OF 2005

KENNY J

11 AUGUST 2006

MELBOURNE IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY VID 1484 OF 2005

BETWEEN: NOKIA CORPORATION

Applicant

AND: CELLULAR LINE AUSTRALIA PTY LTD (ACN 093 296 694)

First Respondent

ABBAS ZEITOUN

Second Respondent

TUNCAY AKYILDIZ

Third Respondent

ERIC SOO WOONG KIM

Fourth Respondent

JUDGE: KENNY J

DATE OF ORDER: 11 AUGUST 2006

WHERE MADE: MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. Subject to 2 below, the respondents pay the applicant's costs of the motion, notice of which was filed on 24 February 2006. 2. The costs of the applicant be apportioned between the respondents as follows: (a) 60 per cent be paid by the first and second respondents; (b) 20 per cent be paid by the third respondent; and (c) 20 per cent be paid by the fourth respondent (less 20 per cent of costs referable to the applicant's costs of preparing evidence of sales of counterfeit products after 24 February 2006). 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 1484 OF 2005

BETWEEN: NOKIA CORPORATION