Cosdean Investments Pty Ltd v Football Federation Australia Ltd (No 3)
Case
•
[2007] FCA 766
•17 May 2007
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Cosdean Investments Pty Ltd v Football Federation Australia Ltd (No 3) [2007] FCA 766
[2007] FCA 766
17 May 2007
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Cosdean Investments Pty Ltd brought an action against Football Federation Australia Ltd, the Australian Professional Football Players’ Association Ltd and the National Soccer League Players’ Association Ltd. The case centred around issues of alleged copyright infringement and passing off in relation to the use of the term "A-League". The parties had previously been involved in litigation over the term, with Cosdean having been granted an injunction against the use of the term. This latest action was an attempt by Cosdean to enforce that injunction. The respondents argued that the proceedings should be dismissed for want of prosecution and that Cosdean should be ordered to pay their costs.
The court was required to determine whether Cosdean had complied with previous orders regarding security for costs and whether the proceedings should be dismissed for want of prosecution. The court also needed to decide whether Cosdean had complied with orders to pay money to the respondents and whether it should pay the respondents’ costs of and incidental to their notices of motion.
The court found that Cosdean had not complied with the orders regarding security for costs and that the proceedings should be dismissed for want of prosecution. The court found that Cosdean had also failed to comply with orders to pay money to the respondents and ordered that the relevant sums be paid within 14 days. The court further found that Cosdean should pay the respondents’ costs of and incidental to their notices of motion. The court also granted leave to Cosdean to apply for the orders made to be varied or discharged. The court made orders for the dismissal of the proceedings, payment of costs and payment of money to the respondents.
The court was required to determine whether Cosdean had complied with previous orders regarding security for costs and whether the proceedings should be dismissed for want of prosecution. The court also needed to decide whether Cosdean had complied with orders to pay money to the respondents and whether it should pay the respondents’ costs of and incidental to their notices of motion.
The court found that Cosdean had not complied with the orders regarding security for costs and that the proceedings should be dismissed for want of prosecution. The court found that Cosdean had also failed to comply with orders to pay money to the respondents and ordered that the relevant sums be paid within 14 days. The court further found that Cosdean should pay the respondents’ costs of and incidental to their notices of motion. The court also granted leave to Cosdean to apply for the orders made to be varied or discharged. The court made orders for the dismissal of the proceedings, payment of costs and payment of money to the respondents.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Civil Litigation & Procedure
Legal Concepts
-
Costs
-
Security for Costs
-
Dismissal of Proceedings
-
Specific Performance
-
Interlocutory Orders
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
St Mary’s Hog’s Pty Ltd v Hbca Pty Ltd (No 2) [2024] FCA 36
Cases Citing This Decision
14
St Mary’s Hog’s Pty Ltd v Hbca Pty Ltd (No 2)
[2024] FCA 36
Sunshine Energy Australia Pty Ltd v Youssef
[2023] FCA 189
Cases Cited
3
Statutory Material Cited
0
Idoport Pty Ltd v National Australia Bank Ltd
[2002] NSWSC 18
Idoport Pty Ltd v National Australia Bank Ltd
[2002] NSWCA 271