BCI Media Group Pty Ltd v CoreLogic Australia Pty Ltd (No 4) [2021] FCA 1285

BCI Media Group Pty Ltd v CoreLogic Australia Pty Ltd (No 4) [2021] FCA 1285

BCI was largely successful against the CoreLogic parties and its application for further discovery was plainly warranted, so the CoreLogic parties were ordered to pay BCI's costs of and incidental to the application except for the 18 October 2021 case management hearing. As between BCI and the Gingold parties, the Court accepted that there should be no order as to costs. Because BCI failed to obtain leave at the case management hearing, it was ordered to pay the prospective respondents' costs of that hearing.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 October 2021
Procedural Posture
Costs Application Arising From Interlocutory Application Concerning Preliminary Discovery Obligations / Judgment on Reserved Question of Costs
Outcome
Costs orders made: CoreLogic parties to pay BCI's costs of the application except the case management hearing; no costs order between BCI and the Gingold parties for the application except the case management hearing; BCI to pay the prospective respondents' costs of the case management hearing.
Legal Topics
['preliminary Discovery' 'further Discovery' 'costs of Interlocutory Application' 'leave to File Supplementary Written Submissions' 'corporations Act Stay on Liquidation']
['costs' 'civil Procedure' 'intellectual Property'] ['preliminary Discovery' 'further Discovery' 'costs of Interlocutory Application' 'leave to File Supplementary Written Submissions' 'corporations Act Stay on Liquidation']

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

Costs Application Arising From Interlocutory Application Concerning Preliminary Discovery Obligations / Judgment on Reserved Question of Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the first, second, and third prospective respondents should pay the prospective applicant's costs of the application determined in BCI Media Group Pty Ltd v CoreLogic Australia Pty Ltd (No 3) [2021] FCA 884." 'Whether there should be a costs order as between the prospective applicant and the fourth and fifth prospective respondents.' 'Who should bear the costs of the case management hearing on 18 October 2021 concerning leave to file a supplementary written submission.']

Ratio Decidendi

BCI was largely successful against the CoreLogic parties and its application for further discovery was plainly warranted, so the CoreLogic parties were ordered to pay BCI's costs of and incidental to the application except for the 18 October 2021 case management hearing. As between BCI and the Gingold parties, the Court accepted that there should be no order as to costs. Because BCI failed to obtain leave at the case management hearing, it was ordered to pay the prospective respondents' costs of that hearing.

Court Disposition

Costs orders made: CoreLogic parties to pay BCI's costs of the application except the case management hearing; no costs order between BCI and the Gingold parties for the application except the case management hearing; BCI to pay the prospective respondents' costs of the case management hearing.

Orders

  • ["As between the prospective applicant and the first, second, and third prospective respondents, the first, second, and third prospective respondents pay the prospective applicant's costs of and incidental to the application determined in BCI Media Group Pty Ltd v CoreLogic Australia Pty Ltd (No 3) [2021] FCA 884...