Pinnacle Runway Pty Ltd v Triangl Limited [2022] FCA 1246

Pinnacle Runway Pty Ltd v Triangl Limited [2022] FCA 1246

The Second Respondent was not required to provide the source material at this stage because the lump-sum costs procedure is intended to avoid taxation-style scrutiny, the Costs Practice Note does not require source material to be exhibited before the costs hearing, the request was premature before the Costs Summary and Costs Response were filed, and any need for production should be determined by the Registrar after reviewing those materials. Requiring immediate production would be inconsistent with the Costs Practice Note and the overarching principle, particularly given the non-insubstantial burden and potential privilege review involved.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 October 2022
Procedural Posture
Costs Application in an Intellectual Property Trade Marks Proceeding / Determined on the Papers: Whether the Second Respondent Must Provide Source Material Before a Lump Sum Costs Assessment
Outcome
Application for production of source material refused at this stage.
Legal Topics
['lump Sum Costs Procedure' 'production of Source Material' 'apportionment of Costs Between Claim and Cross Claim' 'overarching Purpose']
['costs' 'intellectual Property' 'trade Marks'] ['lump Sum Costs Procedure' 'production of Source Material' 'apportionment of Costs Between Claim and Cross Claim' 'overarching Purpose']

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

Costs Application in an Intellectual Property Trade Marks Proceeding / Determined on the Papers: Whether the Second Respondent Must Provide Source Material Before a Lump Sum Costs Assessment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Second Respondent ought to provide the Applicant with copies of tax invoices, itemised narrations and receipts for payment of costs and disbursements to verify apportionment between the trade mark infringement claim and the cross-claim.' 'Whether requiring production of source material at this stage would be consistent with the lump-sum costs procedure, the Costs Practice Note, and the overarching principle in ss 37M and 37N of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth).']

Ratio Decidendi

The Second Respondent was not required to provide the source material at this stage because the lump-sum costs procedure is intended to avoid taxation-style scrutiny, the Costs Practice Note does not require source material to be exhibited before the costs hearing, the request was premature before the Costs Summary and Costs Response were filed, and any need for production should be determined by the Registrar after reviewing those materials. Requiring immediate production would be inconsistent with the Costs Practice Note and the overarching principle, particularly given the non-insubstantial burden and potential privilege review involved.

Court Disposition

Application for production of source material refused at this stage.

Orders

  • ['The Second Respondent is not, at this stage, required to provide the Applicant with the source material requested by the Applicant, namely copies of tax invoices, itemised narrations and receipts for the payment of the costs and disbursements of the trademark infringement claim and the cross-claim in order to...