Case: Dodds Family Investments Pty Ltd (formerly Solar Tint Pty Ltd) v Lane Industries Pty Ltd (1993) 26 IPR 261
Outcome: cited
Considerations of public policy and, in particular, the need for greater economy and efficiency in the conduct of litigation are relevant considerations in the exercise of the discretion when considering whether a successful party is entitled to all its costs: see, e.g. Dodds Family Investments Pty Ltd (formerly Solar Tint Pty Ltd) Lane Industries Pty Ltd (1993) 26 IPR 261 at 271-272. 47 It is sometimes preferable after apportioning issues as I have done to avoid leaving the quantification and fixing of costs of those issues to taxation. I am mindful that an allocation of costs in the case of a mixed result can rarely be achieved with mathematical precision and such is not necessary: Dodds 26 IPR at 272 per Gummow, French and Hill JJ. Unfortunately, I do not have any appropriate material to estimate the amount of costs or time spent on the preparation and consideration of the economic test prior to trial, and so cannot make any percentage apportionment of the costs to be discounted. I therefore propose to order a deduction in the costs awarded to the NCC by reference to the NCC's points of defence and amended points of defence which will unfortunately leave the quantification and fixing of costs of the economic test issue to taxation in default of agreement between the relevant parties. 48 Therefore, I propose to order as follows: In proceeding number VID 1641 of 2004: 1. The costs of the proceeding be assessed and taxed together with proceeding number WAD 39 of 2005. 2. The applicant pay the first respondent's costs of the proceeding, excluding the first respondent's costs solely of or in connection with the positive contentions stated in paragraph 16 in the first respondent's points of defence dated 8 April 2005 and paragraph 17 in the first respondent's amended points of defence dated 25 September 2006. 3. The applicant pay the second respondent's costs of the proceeding. In proceeding number WAD 39 of 2005: 1. The costs of the proceeding be assessed and taxed together with proceeding VID 1641 of 2004. 2. The first-named second respondent pay the applicant's costs of the proceeding. 3. The first-named second respondent pay the first respondent's costs, excluding the first respondent's costs solely of or in connection with the positive contentions stated in paragraph 37 in the first respondent's points of defence dated 2 May 2005 and amended points of defence dated 25 September 2006. I certify that the preceding forty-eight (48) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Middleton. Associate: Dated: 18 April 2007 Counsel for the Applicant in VID 1641/04 and the First-named Second Respondent in WAD 39/05: P Crutchfield Solicitor for the Applicant in VID 1641/04 and the First-named Second Respondent in WAD 39/05: Blake Dawson Waldron Counsel for the First Respondent in both proceedings: C Scerri QC Solicitor for the First Respondent in both proceedings: Clayton Utz Counsel for the Second Respondent in VID 1641/04 and the Applicant in WAD 39/05: N O'Bryan SC Solicitor for the Second Respondent in VID 1641/04 and the Applicant in WAD 39/05: DLA Phillips Fox Date of Hearing: 8 March 2007 Date of Judgment: 19 April 2007 AustLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback URL: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCA/2007/557.html