Hardingham v RP Data Pty Limited (No 3) [2020] FCA 868

Hardingham v RP Data Pty Limited (No 3) [2020] FCA 868

The discretion to grant a stay was exercised because the applicants had insufficient assets to meet the costs orders, the absence of a stay would likely prevent them from prosecuting an arguable appeal, the lump sum costs process might be wasted if the appeal or cross-appeal altered the costs orders, and the evidence suggested RP Data might have a better prospect of recovering costs if the appeal process continued. The respondent was ordered to pay the applicants' costs of the interlocutory application because the applicants succeeded on that discrete issue and there was no reason to depart from the ordinary costs rule.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 June 2020
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application for a Stay of Costs Orders in a Copyright Infringement Proceeding / After Dismissal of the Application and Costs Orders, Pending the Applicants' Appeal and the Cross Respondent's Cross Appeal
Outcome
Stay effectively granted by varying costs timetable orders until after determination or discontinuance of the appeal and cross-appeal or further order; application dismissed insofar as it sought orders against the cross-respondent; respondent ordered to pay the applicants' costs of the interlocutory application as...
Legal Topics
['stay of Costs Orders' 'appeal and Cross Appeal' 'lump Sum Costs Process' 'security for Costs' 'litigation Funding' 'impecuniosity']
['intellectual Property' 'copyright' 'civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['stay of Costs Orders' 'appeal and Cross Appeal' 'lump Sum Costs Process' 'security for Costs' 'litigation Funding' 'impecuniosity']

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

Interlocutory Application for a Stay of Costs Orders in a Copyright Infringement Proceeding / After Dismissal of the Application and Costs Orders, Pending the Applicants' Appeal and the Cross Respondent's Cross Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the orders for costs made on 17 December 2019 should be stayed until disposal of the applicants' appeal and the cross-respondent's cross-appeal." 'Whether pursuing the lump sum costs order process before determination of the appeal and cross-appeal could waste court and party resources.' "Whether the applicants' financial position and the arguability of the appeal justified a stay." 'What costs order should be made on the interlocutory application.']

Ratio Decidendi

The discretion to grant a stay was exercised because the applicants had insufficient assets to meet the costs orders, the absence of a stay would likely prevent them from prosecuting an arguable appeal, the lump sum costs process might be wasted if the appeal or cross-appeal altered the costs orders, and the evidence suggested RP Data might have a better prospect of recovering costs if the appeal process continued. The respondent was ordered to pay the applicants' costs of the interlocutory application because the applicants succeeded on that discrete issue and there was no reason to depart from the ordinary costs rule.

Court Disposition

Stay effectively granted by varying costs timetable orders until after determination or discontinuance of the appeal and cross-appeal or further order; application dismissed insofar as it sought orders against the cross-respondent; respondent ordered to pay the applicants' costs of the interlocutory application as...

Orders

  • ["Order 6 made on 17 December 2019 be varied by extending the time in which the party entitled to costs file and serve any costs summary and submissions in accordance with the Costs Practice Note (GPN-COSTS) to 28 days after the determination or discontinuance of the applicants' appeal and the cross-respondent's...