Hardingham v RP Data Pty Limited (No 2) [2019] FCA 2138

Hardingham v RP Data Pty Limited (No 2) [2019] FCA 2138

The applicants had not established RP Data's copyright infringement and the parties agreed the application and cross-claim should be dismissed. The applicants were to pay RP Data's proceeding costs on the agreed party and party and indemnity bases. For the cross-claim, RP Data reasonably issued it, but it protected RP Data's indemnity interests, the applicants had not sued REA, the separate question concerned only RP Data's liability and could have been determined without REA, and the cross-claim would not be determined on its merits. Accordingly, the applicants should pay REA's costs of the cross-claim except costs of and incidental to the hearing of the separate question, and there...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 December 2019
Procedural Posture
Intellectual Property Proceeding Concerning Alleged Copyright Infringement With Cross Claim / Orders Following Reasons on Separate Question and Argument as to Costs
Outcome
The application was dismissed, the cross-claim was dismissed, and costs orders were made including party and party costs, indemnity costs, and limited cross-claim costs.
Legal Topics
['copyright and Industrial Designs' 'costs Orders' 'indemnity Costs' 'cross Claim Costs' 'lump Sum Costs Determination' 'stay of Costs Orders Pending Appeal']
['intellectual Property' 'civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['copyright and Industrial Designs' 'costs Orders' 'indemnity Costs' 'cross Claim Costs' 'lump Sum Costs Determination' 'stay of Costs Orders Pending Appeal']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Intellectual Property Proceeding Concerning Alleged Copyright Infringement With Cross Claim / Orders Following Reasons on Separate Question and Argument as to Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the application and cross-claim should be dismissed following the separate question decision.' 'What costs orders should be made as between the applicants and RP Data.' "Whether the applicants should pay costs of RP Data's cross-claim against realestate.com.au Pty Ltd." 'Whether any costs orders should be stayed if an appeal is filed.']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants had not established RP Data's copyright infringement and the parties agreed the application and cross-claim should be dismissed. The applicants were to pay RP Data's proceeding costs on the agreed party and party and indemnity bases. For the cross-claim, RP Data reasonably issued it, but it protected RP Data's indemnity interests, the applicants had not sued REA, the separate question concerned only RP Data's liability and could have been determined without REA, and the cross-claim would not be determined on its merits. Accordingly, the applicants should pay REA's costs of the cross-claim except costs of and incidental to the hearing of the separate question, and there...

Court Disposition

The application was dismissed, the cross-claim was dismissed, and costs orders were made including party and party costs, indemnity costs, and limited cross-claim costs.

Orders

  • ['The application be dismissed.' "The applicants pay the respondent's costs of the proceeding, excluding the costs of the cross-claim, on a party and party basis up to 11.00am on 28 June 2019 and thereafter on an indemnity basis, in a lump sum to be determined by a Registrar pursuant to r 40.02(b) and (c) of the...