Brooks, Jodi-Anne v The Upjohn Co (No. 2) Summary

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NG 211 of 1993

BETWEEN:

JODI-ANNE BROOKS
APPLICANT/FIRST RESPONDENT TO THE MOTION

AND:

THE UPJOHN COMPANY
FIRST RESPONDENT/SECOND RESPONDENT TO THE MOTION

UPJOHN PTY LIMITED
SECOND RESPONDENT/THIRD RESPONDENT TO THE MOTION

DR MARTIN RICHTER
THIRD RESPONDENT/FOURTH RESPONDENT TO THE MOTION

DR DONALD MAXWELL
FOURTH RESPONDENT/APPLICANT ON THE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL

JUDGES:	BEAUMONT, CARR AND BRANSON JJ.
DATE:	1 SEPTEMBER 1998
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT (NO. 2) ON COSTS

THE COURT:

Pursuant to the liberty we reserved in that respect on our dismissal of these appeals on 7 August 1998, the parties have now filed written submissions on the costs of the appeals.

Having considered those submissions, we have concluded that no order for those costs should be made.

As our reasons for judgment published on 7 August 1998 indicate, there were two main issues agitated on the hearing of the appeals. The first was the jurisdictional question. On that issue, Dr Maxwell succeeded. As our reasons demonstrate, this was a question of substantial importance. The other principal issue concerned the merits or substance of the applications for leave to appeal, or as they became, the appeals themselves, jurisdiction having been established. Here Dr Maxwell failed. Again the issue raised questions of substantial importance. Looking at the question of costs in the broad, these appeals may then be viewed as matters in which each of the opposing parties has enjoyed a measure of success, and of failure, on the two main points in contention. In the exercise of our judicial discretion in this area, in our view the interests of justice will be served here by our making no order for the costs of the appeals.

I certify that this and the preceding one (1) page are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Court.

Associate:

Dated: 1 September 1998

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Brooks, Jodi-Anne v The Upjohn Co (No. 2) was heard in the Federal Court of Australia, New South Wales District Registry. The case involved a dispute regarding the costs of appeals between Jodi-Anne Brooks, the applicant, and The Upjohn Company, the first respondent, along with additional respondents. The court was required to determine the jurisdictional issues as well as the merits of the applications for leave to appeal. The matter was ultimately resolved by the judges, Beaumont, Carr, and Branson, on 1 September 1998.

The legal issues that the court had to decide were twofold. Firstly, the jurisdictional issue was whether the Federal Court had the authority to hear the case. Secondly, the court had to determine the merits of the applications for leave to appeal, or as they evolved, the appeals themselves, given that jurisdiction had been established. Both these issues raised substantial questions of law and fact. The first issue was resolved in favour of Dr. Maxwell, who succeeded in establishing the court's jurisdiction. However, on the second issue, the merits of the appeals, Dr. Maxwell was unsuccessful.

The court, after considering the submissions from the parties, concluded that no order for the costs of the appeals should be made. The court reasoned that each party had achieved some level of success and failure on the two main points in contention. In the exercise of judicial discretion, the court determined that making no order for the costs of the appeals would serve the interests of justice best. The court's decision to not make any order for the costs of the appeals was based on a balanced view of the respective successes and failures of the parties on the two main issues.

Brooks, Jodi-Anne v The Upjohn Co (No. 2)

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established