FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Key Logic Pty Ltd v Sun-Wizard Holding Pty Ltd (No 2) [2022] FCA 81
File number(s): QUD 607 of 2017 Judgment of: GREENWOOD J Date of judgment: 8 February 2022 Catchwords: INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY – consideration of the disposition of the costs reserved for determination by the orders made in Key Logic Pty Ltd v Sun‑Wizard Holding Pty Ltd [2021] FCA 208 Legislation: Designs Act 2003 (Cth), ss 68(6), 88
Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), s 43
Cases cited: Key Logic Pty Ltd v Sun‑Wizard Holding Pty Ltd [2021] FCA 208
UCP Gen Pharma AG v Mesoblast, Inc (No 2) [2012] FCA 500
UCP Gen Pharma AG v Mesoblast, Inc [2012] FCA 210
Division: General Division Registry: Queensland National Practice Area: Intellectual Property Sub-area: Copyright and Industrial Designs Number of paragraphs: 18 Date of last submission/s: 26 March 2021 Date of hearing: Heard on the papers Solicitor for the Appellant: Bennett & Philp Lawyers Solicitor for the Respondent: Synkronos Legal ORDERS
QUD 607 of 2017 BETWEEN: KEY LOGIC PTY LTD (ACN 099 244 078)
Appellant
AND: SUN-WIZARD HOLDING PTY LTD (ACN 600 193 413)
Respondent
ORDER MADE BY:
GREENWOOD J
DATE OF ORDER:
8 FEBRUARY 2022
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The respondent pay the appellant’s costs of the proceeding before the delegate of the Registrar of Designs fixed in an amount of $4,949.54.
2.The respondent pay the appellant’s costs of and incidental to the proceeding to be awarded as a lump sum, in a sum to be determined by officers of the Court (either a National Judicial Registrar and District Registrar or a Deputy District Registrar), rather than undertaking a taxation of costs, as the appointed Court officer determines.
3.The parties submit, within seven days, a proposed timetable by which the appellant is to file and serve an affidavit in the form of a costs summary (as contemplated by paragraphs 4.10, 4.11 and 4.12 of the Costs Practice Note); by which the respondent is to file and serve an affidavit in the form of a costs response for the purposes of 4.13 and 4.14 of the Costs Practice Note; and by which the parties are to file and serve submissions in accordance with paragraph 4.15 of the Costs Practice Note.
4.Pursuant to s 23 and s 37P of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), rule 1.32 and rule 1.36 of the Federal Court Rules 2011, these orders and the reasons for judgment in support of these orders are made and published from Chambers.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
These proceedings are concerned with the disposition of the costs reserved by Order 3 of the orders made in the principal proceeding: Key Logic Pty Ltd v Sun‑Wizard Holding Pty Ltd [2021] FCA 208.
The principal proceeding was concerned with an appeal by the applicant, Key Logic Pty Ltd (“Key Logic”) under s 68(6) of…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Key Logic Pty Ltd v Sun-Wizard Holding Pty Ltd (No 2) 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
- [2022] FCA 81
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court encompassed the principles and criteria governing the allocation of costs in intellectual property disputes within the Federal Court. Specifically, the court needed to determine whether the costs claimed by Key Logic Pty Ltd were reasonable and necessary, and if the respondent's opposition was justified. The court also had to consider the appropriate method for determining the amount of costs to be awarded, whether through a taxation of costs or a lump sum assessment.
In its reasoning, the court found that the costs claimed by Key Logic Pty Ltd were reasonable and necessary, given the complexity and significance of the intellectual property dispute. The court acknowledged the respondent's legitimate interest in contesting the matter but concluded that the appellant's claims were justified. Additionally, the court opted for a lump sum assessment of the costs rather than a detailed taxation, finding it to be a more efficient method given the circumstances of the case.
The orders of the court mandated that the respondent pay the appellant's costs of the proceeding before the delegate of the Registrar of Designs, fixed at $4,949.54. Furthermore, the court directed that the appellant's costs of and incidental to the proceeding be awarded as a lump sum, to be determined by officers of the Court. The court also required the parties to submit a proposed timetable for the filing and serving of necessary affidavits and submissions, in accordance with the Costs Practice Note. These orders and the accompanying reasons for judgment were made and published from Chambers, in line with relevant sections of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) and the Federal Court Rules 2011.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The respondent pay the appellant’s costs of the proceeding before the delegate of the Registrar of Designs fixed in an amount of $4,949.54.
2. The respondent pay the appellant’s costs of and incidental to the proceeding to be awarded as a lump sum, in a sum to be determined by officers of the Court (either a National Judicial Registrar and District Registrar or a Deputy District Registrar), rather than undertaking a taxation of costs, as the appointed Court officer determines.
3. The parties submit, within seven days, a proposed timetable by which the appellant is to file and serve an affidavit in the form of a costs summary (as contemplated by paragraphs 4.10, 4.11 and 4.12 of the Costs Practice Note); by which the respondent is to file and serve an affidavit in the form of a costs response for the purposes of 4.13 and 4.14 of the Costs Practice Note; and by which the parties are to file and serve submissions in accordance with paragraph 4.15 of the Costs Practice Note.
4. Pursuant to s 23 and s 37P of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), rule 1.32 and rule 1.36 of the Federal Court Rules 2011, these orders and the reasons for judgment in support of these orders are made and published from Chambers.
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.