Federal Court of Australia
Federal Court of Australia
Viagogo AG v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (No 2) [2021] FCA 411 File number: NSD 1187 of 2020
Judgment of: ABRAHAM J
Date of judgment: 23 April 2021
Catchwords: COSTS – where interlocutory application made by appellant granted – where appellant seeking costs on indemnity basis – whether there has been conduct warranting departure from usual practice
Legislation: Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 43
Cases cited: Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Colgate-Palmolive Pty Ltd (No 5) [2021] FCA 246 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Viagogo AG (No 3) [2020] FCA 1423 Colgate-Palmolive Company v Cussons Pty Ltd (1993) 46 FCR 225 Foots v Southern Cross Mine Management Pty Ltd [2007] HCA 56; (2007) 234 CLR 52 Gray v Richards (No 2) [20014] HCA 47 (2014) 89 ALJR 113 Oshlack v Richmond River Council [1998] HCA 11; (1998) 193 CLR 72 Ruddock v Vadarlis (No 2) [2001] FCA 1865; (2001) 115 FCR 229 Viagogo AG v Australian Competition and Consumer [2021] FCA 175 Victoria v Sportsbet Pty Ltd (No 2) [2012] FCAFC 174
Division: General Division
Registry: New South Wales
National Practice Area: Commercial and Corporations
Sub-area: Regulator and Consumer Protection
Number of paragraphs: 9
Date of last submissions: 11 March 2021
Date of hearing: Determined on the papers
Counsel for the Appellant: Ms. K Morgan SC with Ms. A Poukchanski
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