Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Danaris Pty Ltd v J & M United Pty Ltd (No 2) [2011] FCA 281 Citation: Danaris Pty Ltd v J & M United Pty Ltd (No 2) [2011] FCA 281
Appeal from: J & M United Pty Ltd v Danaris Pty Ltd & Anor [2010] FMCA 713
Parties: DANARIS PTY LTD and AVEDIS VARVARIAN v J & M UNITED PTY LTD
File number(s): NSD 1337 of 2010
Judge: JAGOT J
Date of judgment: 29 March 2011
Catchwords: COSTS – whether costs should follow the event where appeal and cross-appeal both dismissed – whether apportionment should be ordered – whether offer of compromise made in primary proceeding under O 23 of the Federal Court Rules relevant to costs of appeal – whether special circumstances justifying order for indemnity costs
Legislation: Federal Court Rules O 23
Cases cited: Digga Australia Pty Ltd v Norm Engineering Pty Ltd (No 2) [2008] FCAFC 76 Graham Barclay Oysters Pty Ltd v Ryan (No 2) [2000] FCA 1220 IMF (Australia) Ltd v Meadow Springs Fairway Resort Ltd (in liq) (No 2) [2009] FCAFC 69 J & M United Pty Ltd v Danaris Pty Ltd & Anor (No 2) [2010] FMCA 756 Ruddock v Vadarlis (2001) 115 FCR 229
Date of hearing: Heard on the papers
Date of written submissions: 23 March 2011
Place: Sydney
Division: GENERAL DIVISION
Category: Catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 15
Solicitor for the Appellants: Mr J P Dawson of Carneys Lawyers
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr A Franklin SC
Solicitor for the Respondent: Williams The Law Firm
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISION NSD 1337 of 2010
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