Vision Gateway v Moretonsoft Pty Ltd

Vision Gateway launched proceedings against Moretonsoft, seeking to enforce an Anton Pillar order and alleging breaches of copyright. The primary judge ordered Vision Gateway to give an undertaking as to damages, which they could not meet. Consequently, Vision Gateway was required to provide security, which they also failed to do. The primary judge struck out the proceedings for want of prosecution. Vision Gateway appealed, but the appeal was later dismissed by consent. The court was required to decide whether to infer an ulterior motive on the part of Vision Gateway in pursuing the appeal and whether costs should be awarded on a standard or indemnity basis. The court found that Vision Gateway's appeal had no reasonable prospects of success and was brought for an ulterior purpose, leading to the inference of an ulterior motive. The court awarded costs on an indemnity basis against Vision Gateway for the appeal against the first to third and seventh to nineteenth respondents. The parties were granted an extension of time to file submissions regarding the appropriate costs order. Vision Gateway was also ordered to pay the respondents' costs of the appeal on the standard basis, to be assessed if not otherwise agreed between the parties.