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
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
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…
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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2023] FCA 1468
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
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.