Harrold v Exactech Australia Pty Ltd

Case [2025] FCA 1058


FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Harrold v Exactech Australia Pty Ltd [2025] FCA 1058  

File number(s): NSD 1224 of 2024
Judgment of: JACKMAN J
Date of judgment: 29 August 2025
Catchwords: COSTS – third party application for costs incurred in complying with subpoena – consideration of scope and application of r 24.22 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) – principles for assessing loss or expense incurred – where costs applicant already discounted the amount charged to costs respondent – where costs respondent submits that documents received were not required by subpoena and challenges reasonableness of hours spent answering subpoena – application for legal costs of interlocutory application – costs granted
Legislation:

Health Insurance Act 1973 (Cth)

Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth)

Health Insurance Regulations 2018 (Cth)

Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth)

Supreme Court Rules 1970 (NSW)

Cases cited:

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Boral Limited [2007] FCA 14

Deposit and Investment Co Limited (Receivers Appointed) v Peat Marwick Mitchell and Co (1996) 39 NSWLR 267

Foyster v Foyster Holdings Pty Limited (in liq) [2003] NSWSC 881

Fuelxpress Limited v L M Ericsson Pty Limited (1987) 75 ALR 284

J Aron Corp v Newmont Yandal Operations Pty Limited [2004] NSWSC 996

Titan Enterprises (Qld) Pty Limited v Cross [2016] FCA 1275

Division: General Division
Registry: New South Wales
National Practice Area: Commercial and Corporations
Sub-area: Regulator and Consumer Protection
Number of paragraphs: 22
Date of hearing: 29 August 2025
Counsel for Costs Applicant: Mr S Powrie
Solicitors for Costs Applicant: HWL Ebsworth
Counsel for Costs Respondent: Mr M Robinson and Mr L Judd (written submissions)
Solicitors for Costs Respondent: Gerard Malouf and Partners

 

ORDERS

NSD 1224 of 2024
BETWEEN:

SIMON HARROLD

Applicant

AND:

EXACTECH AUSTRALIA PTY LTD ACN 146 150 754

First Respondent

EXACTECH INCORPORATED

Second Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

JACKMAN J

DATE OF ORDER:

29 AUGUST 2025

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.Pursuant to r 24.22 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), the Costs Respondent is to pay the Costs Applicant's reasonable loss and expense in complying with the subpoena to produce documents issued on 20 November 2024 in the sum of $112,262.84.

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


REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Delivered ex tempore, revised from transcript

JACKMAN J:

  1. The Australian Orthopaedic Association (Costs Applicant) seeks orders pursuant to r 24.22 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) that the applicant in the substantive proceedings, Mr Simon Harrold (the Costs Respondent), pay the amount of the Costs Applicant's loss or expense incurred in complying with a subpoena to produce documents issued on 20 November 2024. Rule 24.22(1) provides as follows:

    The Court may order the issuing party to pay the amount of any reasonable loss or expense incurred in complying with the subpoena.

    It is common ground that I should fix the amount on a lump sum basis under subrule (2).

  2. The subpoena required production of documents that record or evidence…

Continue reading Harrold v Exactech Australia Pty Ltd

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Harrold v Exactech Australia Pty Ltd [2025] FCA 1058
Case
[2025] FCA 1058
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, Harrold brought an action against Exactech Australia Pty Ltd concerning an issue related to a subpoena. The dispute arose from the enforcement of a subpoena issued to produce documents, and the costs associated with compliance. The central issue was the amount of costs that the respondent, Exactech Australia Pty Ltd, was required to pay to the applicant, Harrold, for the expenses incurred in complying with the subpoena.

The court had to determine the appropriate amount of costs under rule 24.22 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth). This involved considering the principles for assessing loss or expense incurred. The court acknowledged that the applicant had already discounted the amount charged to the respondent, but the respondent argued that the documents received were not required by the subpoena and questioned the reasonableness of the hours spent in answering the subpoena. The court also considered the application for legal costs of an interlocutory application. After reviewing the submissions and evidence, the court found that the applicant was entitled to the claimed amount for the reasonable loss and expense incurred in complying with the subpoena.

The court granted the application for costs, ordering that the respondent was to pay the applicant's reasonable loss and expense in complying with the subpoena in the sum of $112,262.84. This decision was made under rule 24.22 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth). The court's order was clear and precise, ensuring that the respondent fulfilled its financial obligations related to the subpoena.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Pursuant to r 24.22 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), the Costs Respondent is to pay the Costs Applicant's reasonable loss and expense in complying with the subpoena to produce documents issued on 20 November 2024 in the sum of $112,262.84.

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.