> > As a sign of good faith, iiNet has decided not to pursue costs against
> > Melbourne IT for the court action.

> In fact, the Federal Court gave Melbourne IT the opportunity to prepare
> a case for costs against iiNet, and not vice versa.

Sorry, but not correct.  iiNet claimed costs against M-IT, and
of course, M-IT claimed costs against iiNet.  The judge
stated that he felt both parties had acted "reasonably";
iiNet in taking the action, and M-IT in responding.  Therefore
it was his view that we should each pay our own costs. He
cited comments from a recent case against the immigration
department as the basis for this.

We agreed to this suggestion (being in the court at the time).  The
lawyer for M-IT said that he would need to consult with his client.
The judge gave leave for this, but warned that if M-IT chose to pursue
costs, then he would also have to allow iiNet to present a case
for costs as well.  Obviously, its far better to put this thing
to bed and get on with the business of ensuring another case
isn't required in four months.

MM