AxiCorp Financial Services Pty Ltd v CABC (No 2)

Link copied
Case Copied 15 min read

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AxiCorp Financial Services Pty Ltd v CABC (No 2) [2025] FCA 698

File number(s): NSD 134 of 2025
Judgment of: BROMWICH J
Date of judgment: 27 June 2025
Catchwords: COSTS — application for costs under s 570 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) — whether respondent engaged in unreasonable act or omission by not giving undertaking over alleged confidential information — where applicant sought injunction and suppression orders to prevent disclosure of alleged confidential information — where applicant sought costs on indemnity basis — HELD: costs awarded to applicant on indemnity basis
Legislation:

Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) ss 368, 570, 570(2)

Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) r 2.32

Cases cited:

AxiCorp Financial Services Pty Ltd v CABC [2025] FCA 144

Farrell v Super Retail Group Limited (Confidentiality Applications) [2024] FCA 954

Division: Fair Work Division
Registry: New South Wales
National Practice Area: Employment and Industrial Relations
Number of paragraphs: 24
Date of hearing: 17 June 2025
Counsel for the Applicant: Mr D A Ward
Solicitor for the Applicant: Norton Rose Fulbright Australia
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr J Hyde Page
Solicitor for the Respondent: Harmers Workplace Lawyers

ORDERS

NSD 134 of 2025
BETWEEN:

AXICORP FINANCIAL SERVICES PTY LTD

Applicant

AND:

CABC

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

BROMWICH J

DATE OF ORDER:

27 JUNE 2025

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The respondent pay the applicant’s costs of and incidental to the entirety of this proceeding on an indemnity basis.

2.The costs referred to in order 1 extend to and include costs incurred in relation to and incidental to:

(a)the hearing before Perry J on 4 February 2025, including preparing and filing legal process, submissions and evidence;

(b)the suppression order application hearing before Bromwich J on 25 February 2025, including preparing submissions and evidence;

(c)the delivery of judgment by Bromwich J on 4 March 2025;

(d)the costs hearing before Bromwich J on 17 June 2025, including preparing submissions and evidence; and

(e)the delivery of this judgment.

Note:   Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.


REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

BROMWICH J:

  1. The applicant, AxiCorp, seeks indemnity costs of this proceeding from the respondent, who is known by the pseudonym CABC.  As duty judge, I gave judgment in favour of AxiCorp in AxiCorp Financial Services Pty Ltd v CABC [2025] FCA 144 and made the substance of the suppression order sought. A prior duty judge, Perry J, had granted AxiCorp an interim injunction, which was the principal relief sought by the commencement of this proceeding, as well as an interim suppression order covering certain parts of the evidence relied upon to obtain that relief. This proceeding was brought by AxiCorp in anticipation of CABC bringing proceedings against it in this Court following the filing of a general protections application in the Fair Work Commission which had not resolved an employment dispute between them. 

  2. In the Commission, an order in the nature of a suppression order had been made over information contained in…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read AxiCorp Financial Services Pty Ltd v CABC (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
[2025] FCA 698
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

AxiCorp Financial Services Pty Ltd brought an application against CABC in the Federal Court of Australia, seeking an injunction and suppression orders to prevent the disclosure of alleged confidential information. The applicant also sought costs on an indemnity basis, claiming that the respondent had engaged in an unreasonable act or omission by not providing an undertaking over the alleged confidential information. The court was required to determine whether the respondent's conduct warranted the award of costs on an indemnity basis, and if so, the scope of those costs.

The court found that the respondent's conduct in not providing an undertaking over the alleged confidential information was unreasonable, and thus justified the award of costs on an indemnity basis. The court emphasised the importance of undertakings in managing the disclosure of confidential information and preventing unnecessary litigation. The court also noted the significant legal costs incurred by the applicant in pursuing the injunction and suppression orders, and the need to ensure that such costs were appropriately awarded. The court considered the costs incurred in relation to the hearing before Perry J, the suppression order application hearing before Bromwich J, the delivery of judgment by Bromwich J, the costs hearing before Bromwich J, and the delivery of the judgment itself.

In light of the above, the court ordered that the respondent pay the applicant's costs of and incidental to the entirety of the proceeding on an indemnity basis. The order included costs incurred in relation to and incidental to the various hearings and judgments mentioned above. The court considered it appropriate to award costs on an indemnity basis given the respondent's unreasonable conduct in not providing an undertaking over the alleged confidential information.

The court's decision highlights the importance of undertakings in managing the disclosure of confidential information, and the potential consequences for parties who fail to provide such undertakings. The decision also underscores the need to ensure that legal costs are appropriately awarded in cases where parties engage in unreasonable conduct. The final orders reflect the scope of the costs awarded, and provide guidance for the parties in relation to the entry of orders.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The respondent pay the applicant’s costs of and incidental to the entirety of this proceeding on an indemnity basis.

2. The costs referred to in order 1 extend to and include costs incurred in relation to and incidental to:

(a) the hearing before Perry J on 4 February 2025, including preparing and filing legal process, submissions and evidence;

(b) the suppression order application hearing before Bromwich J on 25 February 2025, including preparing submissions and evidence;

(c) the delivery of judgment by Bromwich J on 4 March 2025;

(d) the costs hearing before Bromwich J on 17 June 2025, including preparing submissions and evidence; and

(e) the delivery of this judgment.

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.