Qudos Mutual Limited v Infosys Limited (No 2) [2019] FCA 1373

Qudos Mutual Limited v Infosys Limited (No 2) [2019] FCA 1373

Because each side had a measure of success, Qudos' categories were ambiguous, prolix and oppressive, and the ultimate production orders were narrower and included documents specifically sought only midway through the proceedings, Qudos should bear a limited proportion of Infosys' application costs and the second prospective respondent's costs. However, because Infosys opposed any further discovery and that opposition was not justified, only 20% of Infosys' preliminary discovery application costs should be paid by Qudos, with compliance costs payable by Qudos only if it does not commence identified substantive proceedings within 60 days; otherwise compliance costs are costs in the cause.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 August 2019
Procedural Posture
Application for Preliminary Discovery Pursuant to R 7.23 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (cth) / Costs and Final Orders Following Qudos Mutual Limited V Infosys Limited [2019] FCA 702
Outcome
Preliminary discovery orders made against the first prospective respondent; Qudos ordered to pay 20% of the first prospective respondent's costs of the preliminary discovery application and the second prospective respondent's costs; proceedings otherwise dismissed.
Legal Topics
['preliminary Discovery' 'costs' 'copyright and Industrial Designs' 'breach of Confidence' 'breach of Contract']
['civil Procedure' 'intellectual Property'] ['preliminary Discovery' 'costs' 'copyright and Industrial Designs' 'breach of Confidence' 'breach of Contract']

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

Application for Preliminary Discovery Pursuant to R 7.23 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (cth) / Costs and Final Orders Following Qudos Mutual Limited V Infosys Limited [2019] FCA 702

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether and what costs orders should be made after Qudos obtained preliminary discovery from Infosys in narrower categories than it sought.' "Whether Qudos should pay the second prospective respondent's costs where it was unable to justify that party's joinder." 'Whether the costs of compliance with preliminary discovery should be payable by Qudos or treated as costs in the cause if substantive proceedings are commenced.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because each side had a measure of success, Qudos' categories were ambiguous, prolix and oppressive, and the ultimate production orders were narrower and included documents specifically sought only midway through the proceedings, Qudos should bear a limited proportion of Infosys' application costs and the second prospective respondent's costs. However, because Infosys opposed any further discovery and that opposition was not justified, only 20% of Infosys' preliminary discovery application costs should be paid by Qudos, with compliance costs payable by Qudos only if it does not commence identified substantive proceedings within 60 days; otherwise compliance costs are costs in the cause.

Court Disposition

Preliminary discovery orders made against the first prospective respondent; Qudos ordered to pay 20% of the first prospective respondent's costs of the preliminary discovery application and the second prospective respondent's costs; proceedings otherwise dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Pursuant to r 7.23 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), the first prospective respondent produce to the prospective applicant by 3 September 2019 the source code of the Qudos UAT site as at 19 February 2018 and the AMB UX code as at 19 February 2018, including revision history up to that date.' 'Pursuant to r...