Federal Court of Australia
Federal Court of Australia
Hylepin Pty Ltd v Doshay Pty Ltd (No 2) [2020] FCA 1631 File number(s): VID 1438 of 2016
Judgment of: O'BRYAN J
Date of judgment: 11 November 2020
Catchwords: COSTS – whether costs to be ordered on an indemnity basis or a party and party basis – whether order for apportionment of costs appropriate – whether defendants entitled to indemnity costs due to offers of compromise rejected by plaintiff – where plaintiff has made multiple claims against several defendants – where plaintiff successful in one claim against one defendant but otherwise wholly unsuccessful – where equitable fraud has been alleged but not proven by the plaintiff – costs ordered on a party and party basis
Legislation: Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 43 Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) r 40.02(b)
Cases cited: Dr Martens Australia Pty Ltd v Figgins Holdings Pty Ltd (No 2) [2000] FCA 602 Firebird Global Master Fund II Ltd v Republic of Nauru (No 2) [2015] HCA 53; 327 ALR 192 Fountain Selected Meats (Sales) Pty Ltd v International Produce Merchants Pty Ltd [1988] FCA 202; 81 ALR 397 Hylepin Pty Ltd v Doshay Pty Ltd [2020] FCA 1370 Kazar v Kargarian (2011) 197 FCR 113 Kooee Communications Pty Ltd v Primus Telecommunications Pty Ltd (No 2) [2011] FCAFC 141 Melbourne City Investments Pty Ltd v Treasury Wine Estates Limited (No 2) [2017] FCAFC 116 Urban Alley Brewery Pty Ltd v La Sirène Pty Ltd (No 2) [2020] FCA 351
Division: General Division
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