Entirity Business Services v Garsoft (No 2) [2011] FCA 334

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Entirity Business Services v Garsoft (No 2) [2011] FCA 334 Citation: Entirity Business Services v Garsoft (No 2) [2011] FCA 334

Parties: ENTIRITY BUSINESS SERVICES PTY LTD v GARSOFT PTY LTD, SCION BUSINESS SERVICES PTY LTD and ANTHONY GARRARD

File number(s): NSD 1418 of 2008

Judge: MOORE J

Date of judgment: 8 April 2011

Catchwords: COSTS – multiple claims against multiple respondents – where applicant succeeded on only one claim against one respondent and not the other – apportionment of costs awarded – where judgment awarded is less that $100,000 and copyright claim failed – can relief be sought from effect of O 62 r 36A – where judgment in cross-claim is less than $100,000 – question on effect of O 62 r 36A(2) – where offer of compromise made with one working day before expiry – whether conduct of applicant was imprudent or unreasonable and indemnity costs should be awarded – where motion filed for dismissal of application for want of prosecution is dismissed – question of who is entitled to costs

Legislation: Federal Court Rules O 62

Cases cited: Colgate-Palmolive Co v Cussons Pty Ltd (1993) 46 FCR 225, cited Entirity Business Services Pty Ltd v Garsoft Pty Ltd [2011] FCA 76, cited Haviv Holdings Pty Ltd v Howards Storage World Pty Ltd (No 2) [2009] FCA 652, cited Howards Storage World Pty Ltd v Haviv Holdings Pty Ltd (2010) 182 FCR 84, cited Nokia Corporation v Liu [2009] FCA 20, cited Olivaylle Pty Ltd v Flottwweg GMBH & Co KGAA (No 5) [2009] FCA 571, cited Rooney v ABB Grain Ltd (No 2) [2011] FCA 231, cited Ruaro v Ferrari [2008] FCA 307, cited Universal Music Australia Pty Ltd v Miyamoto [2004] FCA 982, cited Date of hearing: 7, 8, 9 and 10 June 2010, 5 August 2010