FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Powerflex Services Pty Ltd v Data Access Corp [2000] FCA 386
POWERFLEX SERVICES PTY LTD (ACN 007 302 810), POWERFLEX CORPORATION PTY LTD (ACN 058 475 488), DAVID MEREDITH BENNETT, MARGARET ANN BENNETT and DEMILEIGH PTY LTD (ACN 006 026 704) v DATA ACCESS CORPORATION (REGISTRATION NO 508 968)
VG 295 OF 1996
BLACK CJ, HILL and SUNDBERG JJ
30 MARCH 2000
MELBOURNE
|
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA |
|
On Appeal from a single Judge of the Federal Court of Australia
|
BETWEEN: |
POWERFLEX SERVICES PTY LTD (ACN 007 302 810) FIRST APPELLANT
POWERFLEX CORPORATION PTY LTD (ACN 058 475 488) SECOND APPELLANT
DAVID MEREDITH BENNETT THIRD APPELLANT
MARGARET ANN BENNETT FOURTH APPELLANT
DEMILEIGH PTY LTD (ACN 006 026 704) FIFTH APPELLANT
|
|
AND: |
DATA ACCESS CORPORATION (REGISTRATION NO 508 968) RESPONDENT
|
|
DATE OF ORDER: |
|
|
WHERE MADE: |
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The respondent pay seven‑eights of the appellants’ costs of the appeal.
2. The respondent (cross‑appellant) pay the appellants’ (cross‑respondents’) costs of the cross‑appeal.
3. The respondent pay the appellants’ costs of and incidental to the trial save for such part of those costs as is referable to the Huffman Table issue.
4. The costs of the fourth appellant of the trial, and the question whether any part of the respondent’s costs should be paid by the fourth appellant, be reserved.
Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
|
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA |
|
On Appeal from a single Judge of the Federal Court of Australia
|
JUDGE: |
|
|
DATE: |
|
|
PLACE: |
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AS TO COSTS
1 The appellants have succeeded on all but one point on the appeal. The issue on which they have failed, the Huffman Table, was a subsidiary one. They should have seven eights of their costs of the appeal.
2 The appellants have been successful on the cross‑appeal, and should have their costs.
3 The outcome of the appeal and cross‑appeal shows that the appellants should have been successful at first instance on all significant issues except the Huffman Table issue. The appellants should therefore have their costs of the trial except such part of it as is referable to the Huffman Table.
4 The costs of the fourth appellant of the trial, and the question whether any part of the respondent’s costs should be paid by the fourth appellant, should be reserved.
|
I certify that the preceding four (4) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Chief Justice Black, the Honourable Justice Hill and the Honourable Justice Sundberg. |
Associate:
Dated: 30 March 2000
|
Counsel for the Appellant: |
R C Macaw QC and Dr J F Bleechmore |
|
|
|
|
Solicitor for the Appellant: |
Trumble Szanto Braham |
|
|
|
|
Counsel for the Respondent: |
J W K Burnside QC |
|
|
|
|
Solicitor for the Respondent: |
Stephens Solicitors |
|
|
|
|
Date of Hearing: |
10 June 1997 |
|
|
|
|
Date of Order: |
30 March 2000 |
