Findex Group Ltd v iiNet Ltd [2020] NSWSC 347

Findex Group Ltd v iiNet Ltd [2020] NSWSC 347

Because multiple ACT proceedings involving the parties arose out of or were related to the 2016 search orders, including proceedings concerning publications, defamation, trespass and damages under the undertaking as to damages, it was in the interests of justice that disputes concerning the search orders be dealt with in one court, so the NSW proceeding should be transferred to the Supreme Court of the ACT. The 2019 costs order was not intended to include costs reserved in 2018, and because the plaintiffs were unsuccessful on the part of the amended notice of motion heard in September 2018 and determined in October 2018, those reserved costs should be paid by the plaintiffs.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 April 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Procedure; Cross Vesting; Costs / Amended Notice of Motion by the Fourth Defendant Seeking Transfer to the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory and Clarification of Costs Orders
Outcome
Proceeding transferred to the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory; plaintiffs ordered to pay the reserved costs of the specified part of the amended notice of motion; no further costs orders made for the proceeding as a whole.
Legal Topics
['transfer to Another Supreme Court' 'jurisdiction of Courts (cross Vesting) Act 1987 (nsw)' 'correction Under Slip Rule' 'reserved Costs' 'harman Undertaking' 'search Orders']
['civil Procedure' 'costs' 'cross Vesting' 'judgments and Orders'] ['transfer to Another Supreme Court' 'jurisdiction of Courts (cross Vesting) Act 1987 (nsw)' 'correction Under Slip Rule' 'reserved Costs' 'harman Undertaking' 'search Orders']

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

Civil Procedure; Cross Vesting; Costs / Amended Notice of Motion by the Fourth Defendant Seeking Transfer to the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory and Clarification of Costs Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether proceeding 2016/271090 should be transferred to the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory under s 5(2) and/or s 5(6) of the Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-Vesting) Act 1987 (NSW).' 'Whether order 6 made on 11 September 2019 incorporated costs reserved by order 5 of the orders made on 19 October 2018.' 'Whether the plaintiffs should pay the costs of the part of the amended notice of motion filed 4 July 2018 that was heard in September 2018 and determined in October 2018.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because multiple ACT proceedings involving the parties arose out of or were related to the 2016 search orders, including proceedings concerning publications, defamation, trespass and damages under the undertaking as to damages, it was in the interests of justice that disputes concerning the search orders be dealt with in one court, so the NSW proceeding should be transferred to the Supreme Court of the ACT. The 2019 costs order was not intended to include costs reserved in 2018, and because the plaintiffs were unsuccessful on the part of the amended notice of motion heard in September 2018 and determined in October 2018, those reserved costs should be paid by the plaintiffs.

Court Disposition

Proceeding transferred to the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory; plaintiffs ordered to pay the reserved costs of the specified part of the amended notice of motion; no further costs orders made for the proceeding as a whole.

Orders

  • ['Proceeding 2016/271090 in this court be transferred to the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory pursuant to section 5(2) and/or section 5(6) of the Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-Vesting) Act 1987 (NSW).' 'Order that the costs that were reserved by order 5 of the orders made on 19 October 2018 (see...