Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Media Ocean Limited v Optus Mobile Pty Ltd (No 11) [2011] FCA 19 Citation: Media Ocean Limited v Optus Mobile Pty Ltd (No 11) [2011] FCA 19
Parties: MEDIA OCEAN LIMITED, MEDIATEL AUSTRALIA PTY LTD (ACN 105 996 736) and SOUND ADVERTISING LTD v OPTUS MOBILE PTY LTD (ACN 054 365 696) and OPTUS NETWORKS PTY LTD (ACN 008 570 330)
File number: NSD 242 of 2009
Judge: KATZMANN J
Date of judgment: 20 January 2011
Catchwords: COSTS – Settlement of interlocutory application after substantial argument – whether costs order should be made – whether moving parties acted reasonably in commencing and continuing proceedings – whether costs order should be made in any event
Legislation: Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) Federal Court Rules
Cases cited: Ampolex Ltd v Perpetual Trustee Co (Canberra) Ltd (1995) 37 NSWLR 405 Gambro Pty Ltd v Fresenius Medical Care Australia Pty Ltd [2002] FCA 581 Kennedy v Wallace (2004) 142 FCR 185, [2004] FCAFC 337 Media Ocean Limited v Optus Mobile Pty Limited (No 7) [2010] FCA 892 Media Ocean Limited v Optus Mobile Pty Limited (No 10) [2010] FCA 1348 The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs of the Commonwealth of Australia; Ex parte Lai Qin (1997) 186 CLR 622 Rich v Harrington (2007) 245 ALR 106, [2007] FCA 1987 Trade Practices Commission v Sterling (1979) 36 FLR 244 Waterford v Commonwealth (1987) 163 CLR 54 Dye v Commonwealth Securities Ltd (No 5) [2010] FCA 950
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