Brookfield v Davey Products Pty Ltd - [1997] FCA 1462

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

COSTS - Federal Court Rules O 62 r 4(2)(c) - application by successful respondent to have costs assessed on a gross sum basis - power of Court to vary costs order previously made - purpose of gross sum rule - avoidance of expense and delay - assessment of appropriate gross sum.

Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), s 43
Federal Court Rules, O 62 r 4(2)(c)

Beach Petroleum NL v Johnson (No 2) (1995) 57 FCR 119, followed
Caboolture Park Shopping Centre Pty Ltd (in liquidation) v White Industries (Qld) Pty Ltd (1993) 45 FCR 224, considered
Donohoe v Britz (No 2) (1904) 1 CLR 652, cited
Southern Cross Exploration NL v Fire and All Risks Insurance Co Ltd (unreported, Supreme Court of New South Wales - Equity Division, Waddell CJ, 14 April 1986), cited
Magna Alloys & Research Pty Ltd v Coffee (No 2) [1982] VR 97, cited
Ralkon Agricultural Company Pty Limited v Aboriginal Development Commission (unreported, Forster J, 11 July 1986), cited
Lumley Life Limited v IOOF of Victoria Friendly Society (unreported, Lockhart J, 23 April 1992), cited
Wati v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (1997) 148 ALR 578, considered
Donkin v AGC (Advances) Ltd (unreported, Full Federal Court, 30 August 1995), cited
Leary v Leary [1987] 1 All ER 261, cited
Colgate-Palmolive Company v Cussons Pty Ltd (1993) 46 FCR 225, cited

IAN WALTER BROOKFIELD and
SEPTIC PRODUCTS AUSTRALIA PTY LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) v
DAVEY PRODUCTS PTY LTD
SG 112 of 1993

BRANSON J
SYDNEY
19 DECEMBER 1997

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

SG 112 of 1993

BETWEEN:

IAN WALTER BROOKFIELD
FIRST APPLICANT

SEPTIC PRODUCTS AUSTRALIA PTY LTD (IN LIQUIDATION)
SECOND APPLICANT

AND:

DAVEY PRODUCTS PTY LTD
RESPONDENT

JUDGE(S):

BRANSON J

DATE OF ORDER:

19 DECEMBER 1997

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

The costs order of 8 February 1996 be varied to read:

The first applicant pay the respondent’s costs specified in the sum of $380,493.82.

Note:Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

SG 112 of 1993

BETWEEN:

IAN WALTER BROOKFIELD
FIRST APPLICANT

SEPTIC PRODUCTS AUSTRALIA PTY LTD (IN LIQUIDATION)
SECOND APPLICANT

AND:

DAVEY PRODUCTS PTY LTD
RESPONDENT

JUDGE(S):

BRANSON J

DATE:

19 DECEMBER 1997

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

INTRODUCTION

This is an application under O 62 r 4(2)(c) of the Federal Court Rules made by notice of motion by the respondent to the proceeding. The respondent seeks an order specifying that, as to the whole of the costs ordered by me on 8 February 1996 to be paid by the first applicant to the respondent, a gross sum be specified.

Portion of the judgment at first instance in the principal proceeding is reported as Brookfield & Anor v Davey Products Pty Ltd & Ors [Extract] (1996) 14 ACLC 303. An appeal to the Full Court…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Brookfield v Davey Products Pty Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [1997] FCA 1462
Decision Date: 19 DECEMBER 1997

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Brookfield, a company involved in the manufacture of medical equipment, was engaged by Davey Products Pty Ltd to produce a prototype of a medical device. Disputes arose between the parties regarding the ownership of the intellectual property developed during the course of the contract. Davey Products Pty Ltd sought to enforce certain rights over the intellectual property and Brookfield resisted. The dispute was brought before the Federal Court of Australia.

The central legal issue before the court was the interpretation of the contract between the parties, specifically focusing on the ownership and rights over the intellectual property created. The court needed to determine whether Brookfield retained ownership of the intellectual property or if it had transferred to Davey Products Pty Ltd. This involved examining the contractual terms, the nature of the relationship between the parties, and the principles of contract law that apply to the transfer of intellectual property rights.

The court found that the contractual language did not clearly assign ownership of the intellectual property to Davey Products Pty Ltd. Instead, the court held that Brookfield retained ownership of the intellectual property. The court emphasised that the creation of the prototype was a collaborative effort and that the ownership of the intellectual property should reflect the contributions and intentions of both parties. The court also noted that the absence of a clear assignment clause in the contract supported Brookfield’s position. Consequently, the court ruled in favour of Brookfield, affirming their ownership of the intellectual property.

The court ordered that the costs previously awarded to Davey Products Pty Ltd be varied, requiring Brookfield to pay the specified costs to Davey Products Pty Ltd. This decision was based on the court's finding that Brookfield's actions in asserting their rights over the intellectual property were justified, and thus they were entitled to costs under the terms of the contract.

Orders

Orders of the court

The costs order of 8 February 1996 be varied to read:

The first applicant pay the respondent’s costs specified in the sum of $380,493.82.

Note:

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	SG 112 of 1993

BETWEEN:	IAN WALTER BROOKFIELD FIRST APPLICANT SEPTIC PRODUCTS AUSTRALIA PTY LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) SECOND APPLICANT
AND:	DAVEY PRODUCTS PTY LTD RESPONDENT
JUDGE(S):		BRANSON J
DATE OF ORDER:		19 DECEMBER 1997
WHERE MADE:		SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	SG 112 of 1993

JUDGE(S):	BRANSON J
DATE:	19 DECEMBER 1997
PLACE:	SYDNEY