Microsoft Corporation & Ors v Mayhew (No.2)

Link copied
Case Copied 11 min read

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

MICROSOFT CORPORATION & ORS v MAYHEW (No.2) [2008] FMCA 252
COPYRIGHT – COSTS – Copyright infringement – award of indemnity costs – conduct of the respondent and his lay advocate in the proceedings – unwarranted frustration of the carriage of the matter by the respondent and his lay advocate.
Federal Magistrates Act 1999 (Cth), s.79
Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 (Cth), r.21.02(2)
Calderbankv Calderbank [1975] 3 WLR 586
Cummings v Lewis [1992] FCA 247
JL Holdings Pty Ltd v State of Queensland [1998] FCA 1032
Microsoft Corporation & Ors v Mayhew [2008] FMCA 121
Oshlack v Richmond River Council (1998) 193 CLR 72
First Applicant: MICROSOFT CORPORATION
Second Applicant: MICROSOFT PTY LIMITED
Third Applicant: MICROSOFT LICENSING, GP
Respondent: RODNEY MAYHEW TRADING AS RODNEY’S COMPUTERS
File number: SYG 1969 of 2007
Judgment of: Lloyd-Jones FM
Hearing date: 26 January 2008
Delivered at: Sydney
Delivered on: 6 March 2008

REPRESENTATION

Solicitors for the Applicants: Mr G Hansen of Harris & Company
Advocate for the Respondent: No appearance

ORDERS

  1. The respondent pay the applicants’ disbursements in the sum of $13,465.45, exclusive of GST.

  2. The respondent pay the applicants’ counsel fees in the sum of $1,250, exclusive of GST.

  3. The respondent pay the applicants’ party-party costs to 22 August 2007 in the sum of $4,141.60.

  4. The respondent pay the applicants’ costs on an indemnity basis incurred from 23 August 2007 in the sum of $24,799.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
SYDNEY

SYG 1969 of 2007

MICROSOFT CORPORATION

First Applicant

And

MICROSOFT PTY LIMITED

Second Applicant

And

MICROSOFT LICENSING, GP

Third Applicant

And

RODNEY MAYHEW T/AS RODNEY’S COMPUTERS

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. These are the reasons for cost orders in relation to the proceedings between the applicants and the respondent up to and including determination of liability.  Judgment was given in the principle proceedings on 12 February 2007: Microsoft Corporation & Ors v Mayhew [2008] FMCA 121. The proceedings concerned an infringement of copyright by the unauthorised copy of computer software programs and operating systems onto computers for sale as a package. This made the portable computers more attractive to purchasers. The respondent’s breach was made in the knowledge of the applicants’ rights. The respondent’s computer package contained unauthorised copies of the applicants’ software when it was sold to the applicants’ investigators. The applicants succeeded in relation to liability against the respondent.

  2. The applicants now seek an order in proceedings SYG1969 of 2007 that the respondent pays the applicants’ costs with respect to their claim up to and including the day their Calderbank offer was made.  They seek costs assessed on a party/party basis and that the respondent pay their costs thereafter assessed on an indemnity basis.

Evidence

  1. For the purposes of this cost application, the applicants tendered and applied for the following affidavits which was admitted into evidence:

    a)Affidavit of Melanie Ang, affirmed on 12 February 2008.  Attached to this affidavit is the schedule of costs in relation to the fees and disbursements incurred by the…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Microsoft Corporation & Ors v Mayhew (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
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2008] FMCA 252
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Microsoft Corporation and others filed a claim against Mayhew, seeking an order for costs. The nature of the dispute involved software licensing and the recovery of certain costs related to the proceedings. The case was heard by the Federal Court of Australia. The central legal issues that the court needed to address were the appropriateness and extent of the costs that the applicants were seeking to recover from the respondent.

The court considered the principles of costs in litigation, particularly the rule that costs should follow the event. The court found that the applicants had been successful in their claims and that the respondent's conduct had been vexatious. Consequently, the court awarded the applicants their costs on an indemnity basis from a certain date, as well as party-party costs up to that date. The court also ordered the respondent to pay a specified amount of the applicants' disbursements and counsel fees. The court’s decision was based on the applicants' success in the proceedings and the respondent's conduct that was deemed to be unreasonable and wasteful.

The court concluded that the respondent should bear the majority of the costs incurred by the applicants. This was in line with the legal principle that costs should follow the event, and the respondent's actions warranted the imposition of costs. The court ordered the respondent to pay the applicants’ disbursements, counsel fees, party-party costs, and indemnity costs from a specified date. These orders reflect the court's assessment of the respective parties' conduct and the outcome of the litigation.

Orders

Orders of the court

1.

The respondent pay the applicants’ disbursements in the sum of $13,465.45, exclusive of GST.

2.

The respondent pay the applicants’ counsel fees in the sum of $1,250, exclusive of GST.

3.

The respondent pay the applicants’ party-party costs to 22 August 2007 in the sum of $4,141.60.

4.

The respondent pay the applicants’ costs on an indemnity basis incurred from 23 August 2007 in the sum of $24,799.

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.