FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Hardingham v RP Data Pty Limited (No 3) [2020] FCA 868
File number: NSD 1266 of 2018 Judge: THAWLEY J Date of judgment: 10 June 2020 Cases cited: Date of hearing: 10 June 2020 Registry: New South Wales Division: General Division National Practice Area: Intellectual Property Sub-area: Copyright and Industrial Designs Category: No Catchwords Number of paragraphs: 17 Counsel for the Applicants: Mr R Cobden SC and Mr J Sleight Solicitor for the Applicants: Neville Hourn and Bourg Legal Counsel for the Respondent/Cross-Claimant: Mr MD Martin QC Solicitor for the Respondent/Cross-Claimant: Mills Oakley Lawyers Counsel for the Cross-Respondent: Mr HPT Bevan Solicitor for the Cross-Respondent: Corrs Chambers Westgarth ORDERS
NSD 1266 of 2018 BETWEEN: JAMES KELLEND HARDINGHAM
First Applicant
REAL ESTATE MARKETING AUSTRALIA
Second Applicant
AND: RP DATA PTY LIMITED
Respondent
AND BETWEEN: RP DATA PTY LIMITED
Cross-Claimant
AND: REALESTATE.COM.AU PTY LTD
Cross-Respondent
JUDGE:
THAWLEY J
DATE OF ORDER:
10 JUNE 2020
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.Order 6 made on 17 December 2019 be varied by extending the time in which the party entitled to costs file and serve any costs summary and submissions in accordance with the Costs Practice Note (GPN-COSTS) to 28 days after the determination or discontinuance of the applicants’ appeal and the cross-respondent’s cross-appeal (Federal Court of Australia Proceeding No. NSD 114 of 2020), or until further order.
2.Order 7 made on 17 December 2019 be varied by extending the time in which the applicants paying costs file and serve any costs response and submissions in accordance with the Costs Practice Note (GPN-COSTS) to 28 days after the date of filing and service of any costs summary in order 2 above.
3.The applicants’ interlocutory application filed 16 April 2020 be dismissed insofar as it seeks orders against the cross-respondent
4.There be no orders as to costs of the applicants’ interlocutory application filed 16 April 2020 as between the applicant and the cross-respondent.
5.The respondent pay the applicants’ costs of the interlocutory application as between the applicant and the respondent.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(revised from transcript)THAWLEY J:
On 9 December 2019 reasons were delivered in relation to the question of liability of the respondent to the applicant for infringement of copyright in certain works, being photographs and floor plans, the subject of a separate question: Hardingham v RP Data Pty Limited [2019] FCA 2075. On 17 December 2019 orders were made dismissing the application and dealing with costs. The applicant has appealed on the question of liability and the cross-respondent, Realestate.com.au Pty Ltd (REA), has cross-appealed on the question of costs.
By an interlocutory application filed on 16 April 2020, the applicants seek a stay of orders for costs until the disposal of their appeal from the order dismissing the application. Pursuant…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Hardingham v RP Data Pty Limited (No 3) 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
- [2020] FCA 868
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court considered the appropriate time frames for filing costs submissions and responses, taking into account the nature of the interlocutory application and the circumstances of the case. The court noted that the applicants had previously been granted extensions of time for costs submissions in the earlier proceeding, and that the current proceeding was connected to that earlier proceeding. The court determined that an extension of time was warranted in the current proceeding to ensure consistency with the previous proceeding and to avoid any potential prejudice to the parties. The court also considered the applicants’ interlocutory application and found that there were no grounds for making orders against the cross-respondent or for awarding costs of the interlocutory application as between the applicant and the cross-respondent.
The court made orders varying the time frames for filing costs submissions and responses, dismissing the interlocutory application insofar as it sought orders against the cross-respondent, and awarding the applicants’ costs of the interlocutory application as between the applicant and the respondent. The court also noted that entry of the orders was dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011. Overall, the court’s decision provides guidance on the appropriate time frames for filing costs submissions and responses in complex intellectual property cases, while also ensuring fairness and consistency in the proceedings.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Order 6 made on 17 December 2019 be varied by extending the time in which the party entitled to costs file and serve any costs summary and submissions in accordance with the Costs Practice Note (GPN-COSTS) to 28 days after the determination or discontinuance of the applicants’ appeal and the cross-respondent’s cross-appeal (Federal Court of Australia Proceeding No. NSD 114 of 2020), or until further order.
2. Order 7 made on 17 December 2019 be varied by extending the time in which the applicants paying costs file and serve any costs response and submissions in accordance with the Costs Practice Note (GPN-COSTS) to 28 days after the date of filing and service of any costs summary in order 2 above.
3. The applicants’ interlocutory application filed 16 April 2020 be dismissed insofar as it seeks orders against the cross-respondent
4. There be no orders as to costs of the applicants’ interlocutory application filed 16 April 2020 as between the applicant and the cross-respondent.
5. The respondent pay the applicants’ costs of the interlocutory application as between the applicant and the respondent.
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.