Dallas Buyers Club LLC v iiNet Limited (No 3) [2015] FCA 422

Dallas Buyers Club LLC v iiNet Limited (No 3) [2015] FCA 422

Because the ISPs put nearly everything in issue and thereby acted on the adversarial side of the line in a preliminary discovery application, Dallas Buyers Club was entitled to costs, although only 75% because its success was incomplete. The ISPs were required to reimburse Mr Macek's travel, accommodation and living expenses because his cross-examination was ultimately fruitless in an unusual preliminary discovery context. No further security was ordered for trial costs, but the discovery order was stayed pending an ordinary application supported by evidence for security for the future costs of providing discovery. The Court would approve and regulate any letter to account holders and the...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 May 2015
Procedural Posture
Preliminary Discovery Application / Post Principal Judgment Determination of Costs, Security, Undertakings and Form of Relief
Outcome
Preliminary discovery ordered under r 7.22 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), subject to confidentiality and use restrictions and stayed pending further order; costs and ancillary orders made.
Legal Topics
['preliminary Discovery' 'identity Discovery' 'security for Costs' 'costs of Proceedings' 'use of Account Holder Information' 'bit Torrent Copyright Infringement Allegations' 'civil Dispute Resolution Act Genuine Steps' 'undertakings to the Court']
['practice and Procedure' 'discovery' 'costs' 'copyright'] ['preliminary Discovery' 'identity Discovery' 'security for Costs' 'costs of Proceedings' 'use of Account Holder Information' 'bit Torrent Copyright Infringement Allegations' 'civil Dispute Resolution Act Genuine Steps' 'undertakings to the Court']

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

Preliminary Discovery Application / Post Principal Judgment Determination of Costs, Security, Undertakings and Form of Relief

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Prospective Applicants should pay the Respondents' costs of the preliminary discovery application." 'Whether the Respondents should bear the costs of bringing Mr Macek to Australia to give evidence.' 'Whether security should be ordered for past and future costs.' 'How any letter to account holders should be approached and approved.' 'Whether the Court should restrain Dallas Buyers Club from making public comments about infringers.' 'Whether orders should require Dallas Buyers Club to provide an undertaking as to taking genuine steps.' 'Whether Dallas Buyers Club should give the Respondents an indemnity for claims relating to disclosure of account information.' "Whether the Respondents' costs of communications with their customers should be paid by Dallas Buyers Club." 'What form of preliminary discovery and related relief should be granted.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because the ISPs put nearly everything in issue and thereby acted on the adversarial side of the line in a preliminary discovery application, Dallas Buyers Club was entitled to costs, although only 75% because its success was incomplete. The ISPs were required to reimburse Mr Macek's travel, accommodation and living expenses because his cross-examination was ultimately fruitless in an unusual preliminary discovery context. No further security was ordered for trial costs, but the discovery order was stayed pending an ordinary application supported by evidence for security for the future costs of providing discovery. The Court would approve and regulate any letter to account holders and the...

Court Disposition

Preliminary discovery ordered under r 7.22 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), subject to confidentiality and use restrictions and stayed pending further order; costs and ancillary orders made.

Orders

  • ['Pursuant to rule 7.22 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), on a date to be fixed, each of the Respondents discover to the Prospective Applicants a verified list of each of the IP addresses listed in Exhibit DM-1 to the affidavit of Daniel Macek affirmed on 27 June 2014 for that Respondent, together with the name...