Federal Court of Australia
Federal Court of Australia
Harvard Nominees Pty Ltd v Tiller (No 5) [2022] FCA 1510 File number: WAD 250 of 2019
Judgment of: JACKSON J
Date of judgment: 15 December 2022
Catchwords: COSTS - indemnity costs - Calderbank offer - principles relating to Calderbank offers in proceedings with multiple respondents - offer incapable of acceptance by each respondent independently - offer did not differentiate between the different positions of the different respondents - judgment result potentially less favourable to successful party - conduct of respondents' defence did not go beyond bounds of appropriateness - indemnity costs orders not made COSTS - two successful respondents and two unsuccessful respondents - 'rule of thumb' relating to jointly represented parties where some are successful and some are unsuccessful - reduction in costs awarded to successful respondent who engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct - other successful respondent awarded proportionate share of costs COSTS - consideration of principles relating to Sanderson orders - when unsuccessful respondent pays costs of successful respondents - reasonable for successful respondent to be joined - conduct of unsuccessful respondent does not make it fair for it to bear successful respondents' costs - Sanderson order not made
Legislation: Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) Schedule 2 (Australian Consumer Law) ss 18, 236, 237 Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) s 500 Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) ss 37M, 37N
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