Enagic Co., Ltd v Horizons (Asia) Pty Ltd (No 2) [2020] FCA 1240

Enagic Co., Ltd v Horizons (Asia) Pty Ltd (No 2) [2020] FCA 1240

Horizons’ applications failed due to lack of legal representation, lack of evidence of incurred legal costs, and failure to establish relevance/prematurity for further security for costs; only certain categories of the notice to produce were set aside, and costs were awarded on a party/party basis, not indemnity.

Parties
Appellant: Enagic Co., Ltd; Respondent: Horizons (Asia) Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 August 2020
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Interlocutory Applications Determination
Outcome
Applications dismissed in substantial part; costs awarded to appellant.
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Trade Marks Opposition, Notice to Produce, Bad Faith in Trade Marks, Costs Orders
Practice and Procedure Intellectual Property Security for Costs Trade Marks Opposition Notice to Produce Bad Faith in Trade Marks Costs 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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Enagic Co., Ltd

Appellant

Horizons (Asia) Pty Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Interlocutory Applications Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to discharge a stay on payment of security for costs
  2. 2 Whether to order further security for costs
  3. 3 Whether to set aside a notice to produce certain documents

Ratio Decidendi

Horizons’ applications failed due to lack of legal representation, lack of evidence of incurred legal costs, and failure to establish relevance/prematurity for further security for costs; only certain categories of the notice to produce were set aside, and costs were awarded on a party/party basis, not indemnity.

Court Disposition

Applications dismissed in substantial part; costs awarded to appellant.

Orders

  • The interlocutory application filed by the respondent on 29 July 2020 be dismissed.
  • The respondent pay the appellant's costs of the interlocutory application filed by the respondent on 29 July 2020.