Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Limited v Ainsworth Game Technology Limited (No 2) [2019] FCA 511

Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Limited v Ainsworth Game Technology Limited (No 2) [2019] FCA 511

The appropriate costs order was conditional. If Aristocrat commenced a substantive proceeding against Ainsworth within 60 days of Ainsworth complying with the preliminary discovery orders, the costs of the preliminary discovery application should be costs in that proceeding. If no such proceeding was commenced, Ainsworth should pay Aristocrat's costs because, despite the intrusive nature of preliminary discovery and the narrowing of Aristocrat's application, there was a clear and irresistible case for preliminary discovery in the remaining disputed categories which Ainsworth could and should have dealt with without the need for the hearing.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 April 2019
Procedural Posture
Contested Application for Preliminary Discovery / Costs Determination on the Papers After Preliminary Discovery Orders
Outcome
Costs ordered conditionally: costs to be costs in any substantive proceeding commenced within 60 days of compliance; otherwise the prospective respondent is to pay the prospective applicant's costs of the preliminary discovery application.
Legal Topics
['costs' 'preliminary Discovery' 'copyright and Industrial Designs']
['intellectual Property' 'civil Procedure'] ['costs' 'preliminary Discovery' 'copyright and Industrial Designs']

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

Contested Application for Preliminary Discovery / Costs Determination on the Papers After Preliminary Discovery Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['What costs order should be made in relation to the preliminary discovery application.' 'Whether the costs of the preliminary discovery application should be costs in any substantive proceeding commenced within 60 days of compliance with the preliminary discovery orders.' 'Whether, if no substantive proceeding is commenced within that time, Ainsworth or Aristocrat should pay the costs of the preliminary discovery application.']

Ratio Decidendi

The appropriate costs order was conditional. If Aristocrat commenced a substantive proceeding against Ainsworth within 60 days of Ainsworth complying with the preliminary discovery orders, the costs of the preliminary discovery application should be costs in that proceeding. If no such proceeding was commenced, Ainsworth should pay Aristocrat's costs because, despite the intrusive nature of preliminary discovery and the narrowing of Aristocrat's application, there was a clear and irresistible case for preliminary discovery in the remaining disputed categories which Ainsworth could and should have dealt with without the need for the hearing.

Court Disposition

Costs ordered conditionally: costs to be costs in any substantive proceeding commenced within 60 days of compliance; otherwise the prospective respondent is to pay the prospective applicant's costs of the preliminary discovery application.

Orders

  • ['If the prospective applicant commences a substantive proceeding against the prospective respondent within 60 days of the prospective respondent complying with the orders for preliminary discovery made on 18 October 2018 as amended by orders made on 28 March 2019, the costs of the preliminary discovery application...