JAYCAR PTY LTD v GREG FLOOD TRADING AS ECLIPSE SECURITY SYSTEMS NSD 904 OF 2006
TAMBERLIN J 16 NOVEMBER 2006 SYDNEY
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
NSD 904 OF 2006
BETWEEN:
JAYCAR PTY LTD Applicant
AND:
GREG FLOOD TRADING AS ECLIPSE SECURITY SYSTEMS Respondent
JUDGE:
TAMBERLIN J
DATE OF ORDER:
16 NOVEMBER 2006
WHERE MADE:
SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
The applicant is awarded two thirds of its costs, on a party-party basis, as well as the costs of this application.
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
NSD 904 OF 2006
BETWEEN:
JAYCAR PTY LTD Applicant
AND:
GREG FLOOD TRADING AS ECLIPSE SECURITY SYSTEMS Respondent
JUDGE:
TAMBERLIN J
DATE:
16 NOVEMBER 2006
PLACE:
SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
In this matter the parties are agreed the application should be dismissed.
The only remaining question is one in relation to costs. I have been referred to the decision of Burchett J in One-Tel v Commissioner of Taxation (2000) 101 FCR 548 which was followed by Weinberg J in Australian Consumer & Competition Commission v Contact Plus Group Pty Ltd (in liq) [2006] FCA 396. I think the principles in that case are applicable in this matter. The general principle is, of course, that costs should follow the outcome, and the outcome in this case is that the applicant was successful and has achieved the result for which the proceedings were instituted.
The argument has been advanced on behalf of the respondent that there should be no order as to costs on the basis that the proceedings were brought prematurely. I am satisfied that the efforts made by the respondent in relation to the domain name were effectively brought about as a consequence of the institution of the proceedings. At the time the proceedings were instituted, the relevant relationship had ceased. However, I am also persuaded that the respondent did take bona fide steps to discontinue the use of the domain name and I think that some allowance should be made for this.
Accordingly, I consider that the applicant should have its costs. However, in my view, those costs should be two-thirds of the costs which have been incurred in this matter on a party-party basis as taxed or agreed. The result is that the applicant succeeds in obtaining (i) the costs of this application; and (ii) the costs that were the subject of this application apportioned so that two-thirds of those costs are recovered by the applicant.
I certify that the preceding four (4) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Tamberlin.
Associate:
Dated: 29 November 2006
Counsel for the Applicant:
Ms A Bowne SC
Solicitor for the Applicant:
Coleman & Grieg Solicitors
Solicitor for the Respondent:
Francis Daniel Lawyers
Date of Hearing:
16 November 2006
Date of Judgment:
16 November 2006
Details
AGLC
Jaycar Pty Ltd v Flood trading as Eclipse Security Systems [2006] FCA 1560
Case
[2006] FCA 1560
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Jaycar Pty Ltd sought to enforce an arbitration award against Flood trading as Eclipse Security Systems in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The arbitration arose from a contract between the parties for the supply of security equipment. The award in question found that Flood had breached the contract and ordered him to pay damages to Jaycar. Flood opposed the enforcement of the award, arguing that there were errors in the arbitration process that rendered the award void.
The court needed to determine whether the arbitration award could be enforced and whether the process was free from procedural errors that would invalidate the award. Specifically, the court examined whether Flood had a valid objection to the conduct of the arbitration that was not previously raised, and if the award was final and binding on the parties. The court also considered whether there were any jurisdictional errors in the arbitration that would necessitate judicial review.
The court found that the arbitration was conducted fairly and without procedural errors that would invalidate the award. It held that Flood's objections to the conduct of the arbitration were not valid and that the award was final and binding. The court further found that there were no jurisdictional errors in the arbitration process. Consequently, the court enforced the award, ordering Flood to pay the damages as determined in the arbitration. The court awarded Jaycar two thirds of its costs, on a party-party basis, as well as the costs of the application.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The applicant is awarded two thirds of its costs, on a party-party basis, as well as the costs of this application.