The Epoch Holding Group Pty Ltd v Katz

Link copied
Case Copied 7 min read

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

The Epoch Holding Group Pty Ltd v Katz [2023] FCA 1468  

File number(s): NSD 527 of 2022
Judgment of: CHEESEMAN J
Date of judgment: 24 November 2023
Catchwords:

 COSTS – whether costs order should be made – where, if costs order made, whether costs should be payable forthwith following the dismissal of an interlocutory application – where the application concerns access to documents – where the application has been rendered otiose by reason of access to documents being provided without final determination of the merits of application – Held: Cost orders made on usual terms.

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – where parties seek confidentiality orders – where agreement in principle as to necessity to protect confidential information – Held: application successful    

Legislation: Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) r 40.13
Cases cited:

Capic v Ford Motor Company of Australia Limited (Costs Forthwith) [2019] FCA 1065

ONE.TEL Ltd v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation [2000] FCA 270; 101 FCR 548

Re Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs; Ex parte Lai Qin [1997] HCA 6; 186 CLR 622

Tour Squad Pty Ltd v Fifth Amendment Entertainment Inc [2020] FCA 1649

Division: General Division
Registry: New South Wales
National Practice Area: Intellectual Property
Sub-area: Copyright and Industrial Designs
Number of paragraphs: 10
Date of last submissions: 17 November 2023
Date of hearing: 15 June 2023, determined by consent on the papers.  
Counsel for the Applicants: Mr P W Flynn SC with Mr J M Elks
Solicitor for the Applicants: King & Wood Mallesons
Counsel for the Second Respondent:  Mr J Lockhart SC with Mr P Gaffney
Solicitor for the Second Respondent: Herbert Smith Freehills

 

ORDERS

NSD 527 of 2022
BETWEEN:

THE EPOCH HOLDING GROUP PTY LTD ACN 169 456 517

First Applicant

EPOCH CAPITAL PTY LTD ACN 128 329 395

Second Applicant

EPOCH SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT PTY LTD ACN 144 882 744 (and others named in the Schedule)

Third Applicant

AND:

DAVID KATZ

Second Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

CHEESEMAN J

DATE OF ORDER:

24 NOVEMBER 2023

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The interlocutory application dated 5 May 2023 be dismissed.

2.The applicants pay the second respondent’s costs of and incidental to the application.

3.By 4pm, 28 November 2023, the parties are to submit proposed joint short minutes of order addressing confidentiality and access to documents in accordance with these reasons.

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


REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

CHEESEMAN J

  1. These reasons concern two issues:

    (1)cost orders consequential on the finalisation of an interlocutory application; and

    (2)whether interim confidentiality orders should be continued. 

    COSTS OF THE INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION

  2. The costs orders in issue relate to an interlocutory application brought by the second respondent, Mr Katz, dated 5 May 2023 against the applicants, the Epoch Parties. The application has essentially resolved without requiring the Court to formally determine it. During the period the application was on foot, there were a number of developments in relation to the substantive proceeding. Foremost…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read The Epoch Holding Group Pty Ltd v Katz 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
[2023] FCA 1468
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Epoch Holding Group Pty Ltd v Katz was a case brought before the Federal Court of Australia. The dispute centred around an interlocutory application for access to documents, which the applicant sought to obtain prior to a final determination of the merits of the application. The application was rendered otiose when the documents were provided, leading to a discussion on the appropriate costs order to be made. Additionally, both parties sought a confidentiality order to protect sensitive information.

The primary legal issue was whether an order for costs should be made, and if so, whether the costs should be payable immediately following the dismissal of the interlocutory application. Furthermore, the court had to decide on the confidentiality orders sought by both parties, given their agreement in principle regarding the necessity to protect confidential information.

In addressing the costs issue, the court held that an order should be made on usual terms. The interlocutory application was dismissed, and the applicants were ordered to pay the respondent’s costs. The court reasoned that despite the application being rendered otiose, it was appropriate to make a costs order to reflect the need for the applicant to pursue the matter in the first instance. Regarding the confidentiality orders, the court found that the application was successful, given the parties' agreement on the necessity to protect confidential information. The court ordered the parties to submit proposed joint short minutes of order addressing confidentiality and access to documents by a specified deadline.

The final orders of the court were as follows: the interlocutory application dated 5 May 2023 was dismissed; the applicants were to pay the second respondent’s costs of and incidental to the application; and the parties were to submit proposed joint short minutes of order addressing confidentiality and access to documents by 4pm on 28 November 2023. The entry of these orders was governed by Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The interlocutory application dated 5 May 2023 be dismissed.

2. The applicants pay the second respondent’s costs of and incidental to the application.

3. By 4pm, 28 November 2023, the parties are to submit proposed joint short minutes of order addressing confidentiality and access to documents in accordance with these reasons.

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.