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) |
| 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
The respondent pay the applicants’ disbursements in the sum of $13,465.45, exclusive of GST.
The respondent pay the applicants’ counsel fees in the sum of $1,250, exclusive of GST.
The respondent pay the applicants’ party-party costs to 22 August 2007 in the sum of $4,141.60.
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
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.
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
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…
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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2008] FMCA 252
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
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.