Bickford's Australia Pty Ltd v Trink Tank Pty Ltd (No 2)

[2025] FCA 839

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Bickford’s Australia Pty Ltd v Trink Tank Pty Ltd (No 2) [2025] FCA 839

File number(s):	SAD 57 of 2025
Judgment of:	O'SULLIVAN J
Date of judgment:	15 July 2025
Date of publication of reasons:	22 July 2025
Catchwords:	COSTS — where respondent reserved the right to make further submissions on costs depending on the decision of its interlocutory application — where Court heard further argument on costs — whether orders previously made should be set aside — costs orders confirmed — interlocutory application dismissed
Legislation:	Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), r 39.04
Division:	General Division
Registry:	South Australia
National Practice Area:	Intellectual Property
Sub-area:	Copyright and Industrial Designs
Number of paragraphs:	6
Date of hearing:	15 July 2025
Counsel for the Applicant:	Mr A Baillie
Solicitor for the Applicant:	Piper Alderman
Counsel for the Respondents:	Mr A Middleton
Solicitor for the Respondents:	Brixton Legal

ORDERS

SAD 57 of 2025

BETWEEN:

BICKFORD'S AUSTRALIA PTY LTD (ACN 053 240 261)

Applicant

AND:

TRINK TANK PTY LTD (ACN 645 360 925)

First Respondent

MATTHEW JAMES BAX

Second Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:	O'SULLIVAN J
DATE OF ORDER:	15 JULY 2025

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The respondent’s interlocutory application filed 30 June 2025 is dismissed.

2.The respondent is to pay the applicant’s costs of and incidental to the interlocutory application on a party/party basis, in any event.

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

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

O’SULLIVAN J:

1. This is an application pursuant to r 39.04 of the Federal Court Rules2011 (Cth) that orders 3 and 4 of orders made by the Court on 24 June 2025 be set aside.

2. At the outset, in its submissions on the original interlocutory applications heard in this matter, Trink Tank reserved the right to make further submissions on costs once the Court had made its interlocutory ruling.  I failed to give them that opportunity before making costs orders.  In all the circumstances, Trink Tank should be afforded that opportunity.

3. I have had the advantage of written submissions, oral submissions, and authorities from both parties.  Nothing I have heard satisfies me that it is appropriate to set aside the orders made 24 June 2025.  

4. My reasoning set out in the reasons published on 24 June 2025 remain.  

5. It follows that Trink Tank’s interlocutory application filed 30 June 2025 is dismissed.  

6. Trink Tank is to pay Bickford’s costs of and incidental to the interlocutory application on a party-party basis in any event.

I certify that the preceding six (6) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice O'Sullivan.

Associate:

Dated:       22 July 2025