FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Chou v Metstech Pty Ltd (Costs) [2024] FCAFC 39
File number: NSD 59 of 2023 Judgment of: YATES, DOWNES AND JACKMAN JJ Date of judgment: 19 March 2024 Catchwords: COSTS – whether costs should follow the event – where respondents successful in substance but primary judge’s declarations were amended in the interests of clarity Cases cited: Chou v Metstech Pty Ltd [2023] FCAFC 205 Division: General Division Registry: New South Wales National Practice Area: Intellectual Property Sub-area: Copyright and Industrial Designs Number of paragraphs: 9 Date of last submissions: 16 February 2024 Counsel for the Appellants: Mr V Bedrossian SC and Mr H Zhao Solicitor for the Appellants: Broaden Legal Counsel for the First to Fourth and Thirteenth Respondents: Mr A Fernon SC and Mr D Meyerowitz-Katz Solicitor for the First to Fourth and Thirteenth Respondents: SWS Lawyers Pty Ltd Counsel for the Fifth and Seventh Respondents: Mr P Bruckner and Ms D Woods Solicitor for the Fifth and Seventh Respondents: Sessions Legal ORDERS
NSD 59 of 2023 BETWEEN: CHUNG-CHIEH CHOU (AKA JASON CHOU)
First Appellant
WELLDESIGN ELECTRONICS PTY LIMITED (ACN 128 358 378)
Second Appellant
AND: METSTECH PTY LIMITED ACN 602 390 214
First Respondent
AUXILIA HOLDING PTY LIMITED (ACN 121 861 943) AS TRUSTEE FOR THE AUXILIA HOLDING TRUST
Second Respondent
CHAD JEFFERSON (and others named in the Schedule)
Third Respondent
ORDER MADE BY:
YATES, DOWNES AND JACKMAN JJ
DATE OF ORDER:
19 MARCH 2024
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The appellants pay the first to fourth respondents’ (the Metstech Parties) costs of the appeal and the third cross-appeal.
2.Mr Park pay the Metstech Parties’ costs of the first cross-appeal and the third cross-appeal.
3.Mr Martin pay the Metstech Parties’ costs of the second cross-appeal and the third cross-appeal.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
THE COURT:
In Chou v Metstech Pty Ltd [2023] FCAFC 205, we set a timetable for written submissions and any affidavit(s) on the question of costs of the appeal and cross-appeals, and indicated that we anticipated deciding the question of costs on the papers. Written submissions have now been filed and served by the active parties to the appeal and cross-appeals. We have used the same defined terms as we adopted in the principal judgment, and references to paragraph numbers below are to the paragraphs in that judgment.
Grounds 1 and 2 of the appeal, concerning the non-joinder of “Yokao”, were dismissed, principally because the Chou Parties were not permitted to raise those issues on appeal in circumstances where the issues had not been raised below: see [64]–[73] and [81]. There was no utility in Grounds 3 to 10 of the appeal, because those grounds concerned findings as to copyright ownership in circumstances where the Chou Parties were not claiming to be the copyright owner: see [88]–[94]. We decided in the interests of clarity to make amendments to the declaration concerning copyright ownership made…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Chou v Metstech Pty Ltd (Costs) 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2024] FCAFC 39
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issues before the court were whether costs should follow the event, given that the respondents were successful on the substantive issues, and whether the amendments made to the primary judge’s declarations warranted any reconsideration of the costs orders. The appellants argued that the amendments had altered the outcome in a meaningful way, thus impacting the costs orders. The respondents, on the other hand, maintained that despite the amendments, they remained successful on the substantive matters, and therefore, the usual rule that costs follow the event should apply.
In its reasoning, the court found that the substantive success of the respondents remained unaffected by the amendments to the declarations. The court held that the primary judge’s intention to clarify the declarations did not change the overall outcome of the case. Accordingly, the court ruled that costs should follow the event, and thus, the respondents were entitled to their costs of the appeal and cross-appeals. The appellants were ordered to pay the respondents' costs of the appeal and cross-appeals, while specific individuals among the appellants were also ordered to pay certain cross-appeal costs.
The court's orders were that the appellants were to pay the respondents' costs of the appeal and the cross-appeals, and specific individuals among the appellants were to pay certain cross-appeal costs. These orders were to be entered in accordance with Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The appellants pay the first to fourth respondents’ (the Metstech Parties) costs of the appeal and the third cross-appeal.
2. Mr Park pay the Metstech Parties’ costs of the first cross-appeal and the third cross-appeal.
3. Mr Martin pay the Metstech Parties’ costs of the second cross-appeal and the third cross-appeal.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
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.