Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
British American Tobacco Australasia Limited v Taleb (No 4) [2013] FCA 742 Citation: British American Tobacco Australasia Limited v Taleb (No 4) [2013] FCA 742
Parties: BRITISH AMERICAN TOBACCO AUSTRALASIA LIMITED v KHALED AHMAD TALEB, TOM ELYAS, PHIL & ANGELA PTY LTD (ACN 120 255 603), EXPRESS PHONES PTY LTD (ACN 087 673 934), CHAHADE ALLAM, KAHTAN KANAAN, ZHI LIU and MRA PTY LTD (ACN 076 390 228)
File number: VID 644 of 2012
Judge: DODDS-STREETON J
Date of judgment: 18 July 2013
Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for costs following summary judgment – application for costs to be awarded in a lump sum under rule 40.02 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) – whether costs should be fixed in a lump sum – whether proposed lump sum fair, reasonable and proportionate to the nature and complexity of the matter DAMAGES – award of nominal damages – where uncertainty of extent of infringement due to respondent's failure to provide detail or records
Legislation: Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) ss 37M and 43(2) Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) rr 40.02 and 4.05(2)
Cases cited: Bitek Pty Ltd v iConnect Pty Ltd (2012) 290 ALR 288; [2012] FCA 506 British American Tobacco Australasia Ltd v Taleb (No 1) [2012] FCA 1065 British American Tobacco Australasia Ltd v Taleb (No 2) [2013] FCA 34 British American Tobacco Australasia Ltd v Taleb (No 3) [2013] FCA 80 Dunstan v Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (No 3) [2006] FCA 916
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