Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Truong Giang Corporation v Quach [2016] FCA 50 File number: VID 41 of 2014
Judge: WIGNEY J
Date of judgment: 5 February 2016
Catchwords: COSTS – indemnity costs – whether an award of indemnity costs is warranted following findings of trade mark infringement, misleading and deceptive conduct, and passing off – principles of indemnity costs – where proceedings involve unrepresented litigants – consideration of conduct of unrepresented litigants during the proceedings – where offers of compromise were sent to unrepresented litigants – non-acceptance of offers of compromise – whether an award of indemnity costs is appropriate in circumstances where offers of compromise were not accepted pursuant to r 25.14(3) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) – discretion of Court to make an order inconsistent with the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) pursuant to r 1.35 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) – where circumstances warrant an indemnity costs order in terms of r 25.14(3) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth)
Legislation: Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), s 43 Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), rr 1.35, 25.14(3) Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth), s 126(2)
Cases cited: Bhagat v Global Custodians Ltd [2002] FCA 223 Bhagat v Royal & Sun Alliance Life Assurance Australia Ltd [2000] NSWSC 159 Colgate-Palmolive Company v Cussons Pty Limited (1993) 46 FCR 225 Ogawa v The University of Melbourne (No 2) [2004] FCA 1275
Date of hearing: Heard on the papers
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