FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BCI Media Group Pty Ltd v CoreLogic Australia Pty Ltd (Review of Registrar’s Decision) [2025] FCA 616

ORDERS

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.    The application to review a Registrar’s decision filed by the respondents on 26 March 2025 (the RIA) be dismissed.

2.    The respondents to pay the applicant’s costs of the RIA.

3.    Any application by the applicant for any special costs order may be made by email to the Associate to Needham J by 26 June 2025.

4.    The parties are to notify the Court whether there are any issues of disclosure of confidential information in these reasons which would prevent its publication, by email to the Associate to Needham J by 10:30am on 13 June 2025.

Note:    Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

NEEDHAM J:

The Registrar’s decision

1 The respondents, known in this litigation as the CoreLogic parties, seek a review of a decision of Senior National Judicial Registrar Farrell by way of Interlocutory Application (RIA). That decision, given on 14 March 2025, relevantly dismissed the respondents’ Second Further Amended Interlocutory Application (2FAIA) dated 12 February 2025. The RIA seeks orders in accordance with paragraphs 3B(b)(i), 3B(c)(ii), 3B(d)(ii) and 3C of the 2FAIA. Those orders read:

3B. In accordance with r 16.45 of the Rules, the Applicant provide further and better particulars by delivering to the Respondents amended versions of Confidential Annexures A, B and C which:

…

(b) in respect of each of (sic) customers mentioned in Confidential Annexure A, identifies:

(i) the date and method by which that customer was induced to believe the matters pleaded in paragraph 43(v) of the Amended Statement of Claim;

…

(c) in respect of each of the customers mentioned in Confidential Annexure B identifies:

…

(ii) the date on which the Applicant provided a discount to the customer; and

(d) in respect of each of the customers mentioned in confidential Annexure C identifies:

(i) the date and method by which that customer was induced to believe the matters pleaded in paragraph 43(v) of the Amended statement of Claim;

…

3C. In accordance with r 16.45 of the Rules, the Applicant provide further and better particulars of paragraphs 43(v) and 43(vi) of the Amended Statement of Claim which identify the facts and matters relied upon to support an inference that:

(a) RP Data and Cordell presented the information in the Comparative Documents to each of the customers, or prospective customers, mentioned in Confidential Annexures A, B and C;

(b) RP Data and Cordell, by presenting the information in the Comparative Documents to each of the customers, or prospective customers mentioned in Confidential Annexures A, B and C, induced those customers to believe that the information in Cordell Connect was more comprehensive and accurate than the information in LeadManager;

(c) In respect of each of the customers, or prospective customers, mentioned in Confidential Annexures A, B and C, by reason of the conduct pleaded in paragraph 43(v) of the Amended Statement of Claim, that customer:

(i) ceased subscribing to LeadManager;

(ii) required a discount in order to continuing (sic) subscribing to LeadManager; or

(iii) did not subscribe to LeadManager.

2 Confidential Annexures A, B, and C are, respectively, lists of:

(a)    customers who ceased subscribing to the applicant’s service LeadManager referred to in paragraph 43(vi)(a)(i);

(b)    customers who obtained a discount on their subscription referred to in paragraph 43(vi)(a)(ii); and

(c)    prospective customers, but did not subscribe to LeadManager referred to in paragraph 43(vi)(a)(ii);

of the Amended Statement of Claim (ASOC).

3 On 14 March 2025, the Registrar made orders that the applicant provide further and better particulars by amending the Confidential Annexures A, B and C to provide the dates on which it is alleged the conduct took place. That has been done.

4 Otherwise, the SFAIA was dismissed.

5 The applicant, BCI Media Group Pty Ltd, has filed an interlocutory application (AIA) seeking leave to amend the Confidential Annexures. The AIA has been stood over to 13 June 2025 (along with a further interlocutory application by the respondent filed on 3 June 2025, for access to a different set of Confidential Particulars) but I am assured that I can determine the RIA without impact on the determination of those applications.

6 At the hearing of the RIA on 4 June 2025, I was invited by the applicant to make a ruling without giving reasons. However, given the close argument on the RIA by both parties, taking most of a day, it seemed to me preferable to give at least short-form reasons for the orders I have made. The parties did not object to this course when proposed. The matter is back before me for case management on 13 June 2025, and the matter is listed for hearing for 16 days in September 2025. In those circumstances a prompt judgment is necessary, even if it does not adequately reflect the complexity of the arguments put before me.

The dispute

7 The dispute between the parties was summarised, albeit in relation to the dispute as pleaded in the original statement of claim, by Yates J in BCI Media Pty Ltd v CoreLogic Australia Pty Ltd [2022] FCA 1128 as (at [9]-[11]):

9 The general nature of BCI’s allegations can be summarised as follows. BCI, on the one hand, and CoreLogic Australia, RP Data and Cordell (who BCI calls the CoreLogic Parties) on the other, are competitors. They offer competing products that provide customers with access to information in relation to building projects throughout Australia. The information is accessed through a secure Internet site or a phone application by subscribing (for a fee) to the respective products and accessing the information they provide using individualised login details. BCI’s product is called LeadManager. The CoreLogic Parties’ competing product is called Cordell Connect.

10 BCI alleges that, between 2016 and 2019, the CoreLogic respondents surreptitiously accessed LeadManager. BCI alleges that the access was surreptitious because the CoreLogic Parties paid third parties (namely, the Forum Group, Skill Tech, and Gingold Investments) to obtain subscriptions to LeadManager in their own names. The third parties then provided their login details to the CoreLogic Parties, after which the CoreLogic Parties accessed LeadManager and “scraped” content from it, including by using the services of Telus International and Artis.

11 BCI alleges that this was done by the CoreLogic Parties themselves or through agents or subcontractors they engaged. The “scraping” was undertaken using manual processes (humans logging in and performing the “scraping”) and automated processes (in the form of programs known as “bots”). BCI alleges that the CoreLogic Parties used what they “scraped” from LeadManager to make comparisons between the contents of LeadManager and the contents of Cordell Connect. BCI alleges that these comparisons were used by the CoreLogic Parties for internal purposes, to improve Cordell Connect, and to procure customers

8 The causes of action pleaded by BCI against the CoreLogic parties in the ASOC are, in summary:

(a)    breach of contract;

(b)    copyright infringement;

(c)    breach of confidence; and

(d)    misleading and deceptive conduct in contravention of s 18 of the Australian Consumer Law (Schedule 2 to the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth)).

9 The Defence, in broad terms, admits some of the conduct alleged (for example, the creation of Comparative Documents comparing the data of both sides, and the use of robotic process automation on LeadManager to gain that information) but denies some specifics of various allegations, and denies wrongdoing as alleged.

10 The dispute at the heart of the RIA concerns the pleadings in paragraph 43 of the ASOC. That paragraph is quite lengthy. It can be found in the document entitled Parallel Pleadings at Attachment A to these reasons, which was handed up by the applicant during the hearing and sets out the relevant paragraphs of the pleading, that is, the section of the ASOC headed RP Data and Telus International and Artis Group accessed and copied information from LeadManager (paragraphs 41A-43C). The document has had long portions of particulars irrelevant to the RIA, mainly consisting of names of people alleged to have sent emails on particular dates, removed by my chambers in the interests of clarity and privacy.

11 Attachment A, while it sets out the ASOC paragraphs verbatim, from time to time paraphrases the Defence (see for example the defence to paragraph 41E). Where the specific terms of the pleading in the Defence are important, I have set them out below.

The questions to be determined

12 Although the RIA seeks a review of the Registrar’s decision, this is a hearing de novo and does not hinge on an error in the Registrar’s decision being shown (see Bechara v Bates (2021) FCR 166; [2021] FCAFC 34 at [17]).

13 The question as posed was, should BCI provide:

(a)    further particulars to paragraphs 43(v) and 43(vi) of the ASOC by way of further amendment to the Confidential Annexures A, B and C, and

(b)    further and better particulars “which identify the facts and matters relied upon to support an inference” that some of the CoreLogic parties “presented” the information in the Comparative Documents to the customers mentioned in the Confidential Annexures, and that they by doing so induced those customers to have a particular view of the two competitors’ services, and that by reason of that conduct and inducement, the customers took the actions that are listed in each of those Confidential Annexures.

14 The Confidential Annexures currently relied upon by the applicant provide only a row number, a company name, and a date when it is alleged that the named entity ceased to be a customer, had a discount applied, or would have become a customer. The date was ordered to be included by the Registrar in his decision. The additional facts sought to be included in the Confidential Annexures relate to the method by which customers were induced in the respective way alleged in each case.

15 The RIA calls on Rule 16.45 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) (FC Rules). I set out the relevant rules as discussed in the Registrar’s reasons at [15]-[17].

15. Rule 16.02 relevantly provides:

Content of pleadings—general

(1) A pleading must:

(a) be divided into consecutively numbered paragraphs, each, as far as practicable, dealing with a separate matter; and

(b) be as brief as the nature of the case permits; and

(c) identify the issues that the party wants the Court to resolve; and

(d) state the material facts on which a party relies that are necessary to give the opposing party fair notice of the case to be made against that party at trial, but not the evidence by which the material facts are to be proved; and

(e) state the provisions of any statute relied on; and

(f) state the specific relief sought or claimed.

16. Rule 16.03 provides:

Pleading of facts

(1) A party must plead a fact if:

(a) it is necessary to plead it to meet an express denial of the fact pleaded by another party; or

(b) failure to plead the fact may take another party by surprise.

(2) However, a party need not plead a fact if the burden of proving the fact does not lie on that party.

17. Rule 16.45 provides:

Application for order for particulars

(1) If a pleading does not give a party fair notice of the case to be made against that party at trial and, as a result, the party may be prejudiced in the conduct of the party’s case, the party may apply to the Court for an order that the party who filed the pleading serve on the party:

(a) particulars of the claim, defence or other matter stated in the pleading; or

(b) a statement of the nature of the case relied on; or

(c) if there is a claim for damages—particulars of the damages claimed.

(2) An application under subrule (1) may be made only if:

(a) the particulars in the pleading are inadequate; and

(b) the party seeking the order could not conduct the party’s case without further particulars.

(3) A respondent who applies to the Court for an order under subrule (1) before filing the respondent’s defence must satisfy the Court that an order is necessary or desirable to enable the respondent to plead.

16 I agree with the Registrar’s review of the principles applying under the above Rules to the effect that the purpose of pleadings is to set out the material facts to be relied upon in the proceedings, so that the issues are sufficiently defined so that the parties understand them (at [18]), and that the purpose of particulars is to prevent parties from being taken by surprise, and to facilitate the collection of relevant evidence (see [18] and [19]).

17 The onus is on the CoreLogic parties to show that, pursuant to r 16.45(2), the current particulars are inadequate, and that they “could not conduct [their] case without further particulars”.

The dispute about an inferential case

18 The focus of the argument before me was the contention that the CoreLogic parties are not able to conduct their case in relation to the allegations in paragraphs 43(v) and 43(vi) without the primary facts relied upon to establish what they say is an inferential case pleaded in those paragraphs. They say that it became clear in January of this year that the pleading in those paragraphs relied on inferences being drawn, and that without knowledge of the primary facts which need to be proved to establish the inference, and without pleading of the inference sought to be drawn from those facts, they cannot meet that unpleaded inferential case.

19 As can be seen from Attachment A, the relevant paragraphs are as follows:

43(v) By presenting the information in the Comparative Documents to customers and prospective customers, RP Data and Cordell induced customers and prospective customers of BCI Media Group to believe that the information in Cordell Connect was more comprehensive and accurate than the information in LeadManager.

Particulars

(i) Customers and prospective customers of BCI Media Group presently known to BCI Media Group who were induced are set out in Confidential Annexures A, B and C.

43(vi) The conduct pleaded in paragraph 43(v) above caused:

(a) customers of BCI Media Group to:

(i) cease subscribing to LeadManager;

(ii) require BCI Media Group to apply a discount to their subscription fee; and

(b) prospective customers of BCI Media Group to not subscribe to LeadManager.

Particulars

(i) The customers of BCI Media Group who ceased subscribing to LeadManager as presently known to BCI Media Group are set out in Confidential Annexure A.

(ii) The customers of BCI Media Group where a discount was applied to their subscription as presently known to BCI Media Group are set out in Confidential Annexure B.

(iii) The prospective customers of BCI Media Group who did not subscribe to LeadManager as presently known to BCI Media Group are set out in Confidential Annexure C.

20 The defence pleaded to each of these paragraphs was that “the Respondents do not know, and cannot admit, allegation” (as filed). This blanket non-admission is in contrast to the pleadings to paragraphs (i) to (iv) of paragraph 43, which single out allegations which are admitted, sometimes confined to conduct of RP Data, one of the CoreLogic parties (paragraphs (i) and (ii)), or restricted to the emails “expressly particularized in that paragraph” (paragraph (iv)).

21 The ASOC does contain a pleading of an inference, in paragraph 43(iv). The particulars to that paragraph set out the conduct from which the pleaded inference could be inferred, including “what is pleaded in paragraphs 42(i) to 42(iii) above.” (It is accepted that the references to paragraph 42 in these particulars is an error and should read “43(i) to 43(iii) above”).

22 The respondents say that they pleaded to paragraphs 43(v) and (vi) in the way they did because they were unable to do otherwise. They did not take the view that the pleadings required the making of an inferential case against them until January of this year. No objection was taken to the amended pleading but, the respondents say, that is because they did not understand that the pleading was based on inferences.

23 The respondents say that there must be “something more” to link the pleadings in 43(v) and (vi) to the pleaded facts and particulars in paragraphs 43(i) to (iv). They say that the “something more” became crystallised by the terms of paragraphs [35] and [36] of an affidavit filed 31 January 2025 by the applicant’s solicitor, Mr Williams, who said:

35 I understand paragraph 22 of the 13 December Cliff Affidavit to suggest that because the Respondents have not identified in the Applicant's CRM on its review to date any written examples of Relevant Customers explicitly saying that their decision to cease subscribing to LeadManager is due to Cordell Connect's conduct, that conduct therefore cannot be proven. If that suggestion is being made, it is incorrect. BCI does not need to prove by reference to a record held by either party what was said to each customer or potential customer. The Court may reach that conclusion based on the facts that the comparative data was consistently provided to CoreLogic salespeople during the Period, along with instructions on how to impart that information to customers and potential customers of CoreLogic for the financial benefit of CoreLogic, and that such salespeople did so, when following those instructions.

36 BCI will be relying on the extensive documentary evidence of comparative information and specific authorised representations circulated amongst their sales staff during the relevant Period as reflecting evidence from which an inference will be drawn that the information and the representations were deployed when dealing with customers and prospective customers of CoreLogic. BCl's position is that it is not an answer to that evidence for CoreLogic to seek to rely on the absence of references to that information and the representations in the Applicant's CRM as it does not purport to be a verbatim record of the communications with the relevant customers any more than the Respondents' CRM purports to be a verbatim record.

(emphasis taken from respondents’ submissions on the RIA)

24 The affidavit of Mr Cliff, solicitor for the respondents, referred to by Mr Williams was not originally read on this application, and so the extracted paragraphs of Mr Williams’ affidavit were not put in context. At the  Court’s suggestion that it be read on the limited basis of providing context to what was an important part of the respondents’ case, it has now become part of the material on this application.

25 The respondents contend that the first sentence of paragraph 36 means that BCI, not having pleaded an inference by which it linked the presentation of the material (paragraph 43(iv)) and the inducement alleged in paragraph 43(v), intends to rely on unpleaded inferences to establish that link.

26 The respondents also referred to submissions made by BCI’s junior counsel before the Registrar (as set out in paragraphs 31 and 33 of the respondents’ submissions) where there was discussion of how the evidence as to an “overlap” between customers who were provided with the comparative documents who took up subscriptions for LeadManager, and the fact that communications between the salespeople for the relevant respondents, and the customers listed in the Confidential Annexures, lined up in particular ways. The CoreLogic parties say that such an approach is necessarily inferential, and is underlined by the approach now taken by the applicant in the AIA, which seeks to add to the names in the Confidential Annexures.

27 The heart of the CoreLogic parties’ submission is that “The fact that BCI is, in truth, running an (unpleaded) inferential case emerges from discovery” because “… neither party has discovered any document recording or referring to any presentation of Comparative Documents (or other approach) to [then current, and prospective] customers”. They say that the evidence filed by the applicant (which is complete as to lay evidence) does not demonstrate a link between any “presentations” and the named customers in the Confidential Annexures, and, so, “CoreLogic … remains wholly in the dark about the case that BCI seeks to advance against it”.

28 They relied in their argument on this point on the requirements of pleading an inferential case, pointing to a number of authorities which it is said supports their position.

29 The decision of Kennett J in ASIC v Pattenden [2024] FCA 1331 involved a similar factual backdrop in which an application was made following discovery and following the applicant having put on its evidence in chief, and allegations of which the particulars were sought were the subject of pleaded non-admissions. At [36] of Pattenden, it was submitted by the respondents that Kennett J expressly regarded the pleading of a non-admission as not being something which stood in the way of an application for the provision of particulars. His Honour went on to observe at [45] that the response of the applicant in those proceedings that the details of the allegations would be made by the evidence could not be seen as a full response, and that fairness required those matters to be provided by way of particulars, rather than having to await further steps.

30 The Court’s attention was then brought to the decision of Pagone J in Vaughan v Becton Property Group [2014] FCA 581. At [15] of Vaughan v Becton, Pagone J observed that the defence of the pleading in question offered up by Counsel, namely that the amended statement of claim, which alleged facts from which relevant inferences could be drawn with various specific allegations identified, was insufficient. Pagone J observed that a litigant should be told with precision which facts are alleged against them including which inferences a Court will be asked to draw as the basis for liability and which facts are said to justify those inferences. In that case, his Honour found that the amended statement of claim did not link the inferences which were said to base the actionable allegations, nor did it identify the facts which were said to warrant the inferences which needed to be drawn, with this conclusion founding his Honour’s decision to strike out the pleading.

31 Counsel for the respondent also noted two cases which cite the above principles expounded by Pagone J, namely those of Markovic J in Qualify Me Pty Ltd v Get Qualified Australia Pty Ltd [2016] FCA 192 and Cheeseman J in Yuanda Australia Pty Ltd v Dawson [2023] FCA 551.

32 The respondents further relied on the decision of Henry J in Yee v Wellington [2025] QSC 121, which, much like the circumstances in these proceedings, involved both copyright and breach of contract claims, although those claims arose from the perhaps subjectively more interesting world of music. At [22] of Yee, Henry J helpfully sets out what the requirements are for pleading an inferential case, which his Honour conceptualises as a three-step process requiring:

(1)    the adducing of direct evidence of what are cast as “foundational facts”;

(2)    identification of how those facts invite inferences of “intermediate fact”; and in turn

(3)    alleging a cause of action to be inferred from those foundational and intermediate facts.

33 While counsel for the respondents acknowledged that these conclusions were drawn in relation to the requirements of the Queensland Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), he observed that the relevant rule, being r 149, is substantially in the same terms as r 16.02 of the Rules. On the facts in Yee, his Honour concluded that the allegations pleaded in that statement of claim satisfied steps 1 and 3 above, but failed to satisfy the pleading requirements in relation to step 2. I am invited to draw the same conclusion in this application.

34 In the same vein of Queensland Supreme Court decisions, the respondents pointed to the decision of Bowskill J in Quinlan v Erm Power Ltd (No 1) (2021) 7 QR 377, in which her Honour noted at [65] the requirement in the rules for an explicit linking of facts to inferences, with that requirement necessitating that the relevant pleading spell out the precise manner in which the underlaying facts are to be deployed. The applicant resists, as it did before the Registrar, the conclusion that the pleading in 43(v) and (vi) is inferential, saying that the facts relied upon are pleaded and particularised in paragraphs 43 to 43(iv). They say that the push by the CoreLogic parties is an attempt to obtain, not particulars of a pleaded case, but evidence.

35 In support of this contention, they point to the fact that, on BCI’s case, the CoreLogic parties have sought to conceal their conduct relating to the creation and presentation of the Comparative Documents to customers and prospective customers, leading to lacunae in the evidence and in the CoreLogic parties’ disclosure. In particular, the applicant relies on the principle that where the CoreLogic parties have, they submit, created difficulties or impossibilities of proof by their wrongdoing, they bear the evidential onus; see Cessnock City Council v 13259932 Pty Ltd [2024] HCA 17; 98 ALJR 719 at [127]-[132]; Kingsgrove RSL v Sasevski [2002] NSWCA 342 at [42].

36 The applicant also points to the equitable nature of the relief sought in the breach of confidence and copyright causes of action. BCI says that their evidence will demonstrate that the CoreLogic parties, not BCI, will have the onus to prove that the Leadmanager profits in the relevant period should not be attributed to the wrongful conduct (see Ancient Order of Foresters in Victoria Friendly Society Ltd v Lifeplan Australia Friendly Society Ltd (2018) 265 CLR 1 at [13]-[21]).They say that their evidence will demonstrate that the CoreLogic parties, not BCI, will have the onus to prove that the Leadmanager profits in the relevant period should not be attributed to the wrongful conduct (see Ancient Order of Foresters at [13]-[21]).

Is there an unpleaded inferential case?

37 In discussion between the Bench and Mr Hastie, counsel for the CoreLogic parties, the question was asked whether the applicant sought, in fact, particulars of an inferential case in 43(v) and (vi), or whether they sought to tie the applicant to the pleadings as they stand; in which case, the applicant would not be able to assert, later in the conduct of this litigation, that they relied on inferences to make out the facts pleaded in 43(v) and (vi). Mr Hastie submitted that the CoreLogic parties’ position was that:

…[BCI is] running an inferential case. Their solicitor has sworn to it. It has been confirmed in exchanges before the registrar previously. The way in which the confidential annexures – and the correspondence has confirmed it as well. It has never been disavowed, including in the written submissions that have been progressively filed over the last couple of weeks on this application. It is evident that they must be running an inferential case.

38 Referring to this exchange, Mr Hennessy SC, for BCI, took the Court through the pleadings as set out in Annexure A, starting at paragraph 42 of the ASOC, and submitted (in very broad summary) that, in the pleadings leading up to paragraphs 43(v) and (vi):

(a)    the respondents admit that some of the CoreLogic parties used data obtained from BCI to create comparative documents;

(b)    the respondents admit that a process was created by which customers of one of the CoreLogic parties could request documents for the purpose of presentation to customers (noting that the applicant’s pleading is wider, but the defence restricts the admission to only one of the respondents);

(c)    the respondents admit that one of the CoreLogic parties were in fact provided with comparative documents for that purpose; and

(d)    in relation to paragraph 43(iv), the particularised inference, the respondents admit the allegation 43(iv)(b) “as it concerns the emails expressly particularised in that paragraph”.

39 The result of the respondents’ admissions in relation to paragraph 43(iv)(b) then, reads as follows:

From at least 11 May 2017, employees of RP Data and Cordell … sent the expressly particularised emails containing information from the Comparative Documents to customers or proposed customers of BCI Media Group.

40 The particulars to 43(v) link the pleading in 43(iv) to requests for comparative documents as particularised in paragraph 43(ii), which lists a number of specific emails and dates.

41 The particulars to paragraph 43(v) provide:

Customers and prospective customers of BCI Media Group presently known to BCI Media Group who were induced are set out in Confidential Annexures A, B and C.

42 Mr Hennessy set out the applicant’s position as follows by drawing my attention to 43(v) and saying:

… the opening words [of 43(v) are] “by presenting the information in the comparative documents.” That is language that, self-evidently, refers back to previous sub-paragraphs that make a series of factual allegations about the deployment of information in the comparative documents by presentation, much of which is admitted in some form or another.

And that point addresses argument 1 by my friend immediately before lunch, because his point was that we have not identified the inferential case in paragraphs 43(v) and (vi). My point, with respect, is, of course we have, because 43(v), acknowledged by my learned friend both in writing and in oral submissions to be a pleading about the consequences of the conduct pleaded earlier, is referring to that earlier conduct, and that conduct is not to be mischaracterised as simply allegations about a general practice. They are specific allegations about the use of my client’s information in documents that were presented to customers and potential customers.

43 The applicant characterised the respondents’ case of “there must be something more” as ignoring the pleaded case of connections between 43(i)-(iv) on the one hand, and 43(v)-(vi) on the other, and criticises the blanket pleading of “do not know and cannot admit” in relation to the actions taken by staff of the CoreLogic parties to present the comparative documents to customers and prospective customers.

44 Mr Hennessy SC took me to part of the evidence, which included various directives to employees not to leave the comparative documents with customers, as indicating an attempt on the part of the CoreLogic parties to conceal the comparative documents. He submitted that “everything that goes before paragraph 43(v) constitutes the facts and then an inference as to presentation, that has the effect pleaded or the consequence pleaded in 43(v).” Additionally, the particulars to paragraph 43(vii) provide:

Particulars

It is to be inferred from the conduct pleaded in paragraphs 43(iv) to 43(vi) that some customers listed in Confidential Annexures A and C entered into subscription agreements with RP Data.

The customers and prospective customers who entered into subscription agreements with RP Data is solely within the knowledge of RP Data and will be provided after evidence and discovery.

Should the applicant be required to plead an inferential case in lieu of paragraphs 43(v) and (vi)?

45 It seems to me that the CoreLogic parties have not made out their contention that there is a necessarily unpleaded case underlying the pleadings in paragraphs 43(v) and (vi). Where BCI has expressly disavowed that position, and has pointed to the way in which it intends to run its case by proving the process and the directions to staff from which, it says, it can prove the inducement to customers and potential customers, it does not seem to me that the CoreLogic parties are unable to run their case on the pleadings and particulars currently provided.

46 I do not regard the affidavit of Mr Williams as being a definitive contention that the inferential case is restricted to paragraphs 43(v) and (vi). The Registrar dealt with this issue at [54] of his reasons, and I agree that the passage in Mr Williams’ affidavit is a summary, not a thoughtful analysis of the pleaded basis of his client’s case. In any event, there is a specific particularisation of an interference in 43(iv), and I accept the applicant’s submission that the whole of paragraph 43 needs to be read together, particularly as to the process by which the presentation of the comparative documents came about. Nor do I regard the different ways in which the parties have regarded their cases as resulting in the respondents’ position being “unanswered”. The complaint appears to be rather that the applicant does not agree with the respondents that there is an unpleaded inferential case for which particulars should be given.

47 For these reasons, I am not satisfied that there is an unpleaded inferential case. I am accordingly not minded to order the further particularisation of the claims in 43(v) and (vi), noting that the current pleading appears to accord with the requirements as to pleading articulated by Yates J in BCI Media Group Pty Ltd v CoreLogic Australia Pty Ltd (No 2) [2023] FCA 664 at [96].

48 I am not persuaded that the respondents cannot meet the case as pleaded. While there has been a careful pleading to paragraphs (i) to (iv), the blanket non-admission does not mean that the respondents are unable to plead to paragraphs (v) to (vi). The non-admission puts the applicant to proof of its case, and as the applicant has steadfastly rejected the view that the way to proof lies in proving an inference, it is on notice as to how it needs to prove its case.

Should BCI be required to amend the Confidential Annexures as sought in the RIA?

49 The above reasoning also applies to the amendments to the Confidential Annexures sought by the respondent. Where the applicant maintains that it is not pleading a case based on inferences, and where reading paragraph 43 as a connected whole, it appears that that claim may be able to be sustained, it is in fact a request for evidence to require that the “date and method by which … customer[s] were induced to believe the matters pleaded in paragraph 43(v) of the Statement of Claim”.

50 I am not persuaded that the particulars sought in the Confidential Annexures are “necessary” for the respondents to run their case. As noted by Yates J in BCI Media Group Pty Ltd v CoreLogic Australia Pty Ltd (No 2) at [97]:

BCI should also provide particulars of the identities of the various actual customers of BCI, the actual customers of RP Data, the prospective customers of BCI, and the prospective customers of RP Data, known to it, who acted in the ways alleged.

51 The Confidential Annexures comply with this requirement.

52 Accordingly, for the above reasons, I am not satisfied that the Confidential Annexures should be ordered to be amended to include the method by which it is alleged that the relevant customers were relevantly induced to a particular state of belief, as the basis for this is contained in the ASOC in paragraph 43.

Orders

53 Accordingly, the RIA should be dismissed with costs.

54 If there is any application by the applicant for any special costs order, any such application may be provided to my Associate within 14 days of today’s date, and will be determined at the substantive hearing of this matter.

Associate:

Dated:    12 June 2025

SCHEDULE OF PARTIES

Attachment A

BCI Media Group Pty Ltd v CoreLogic Australia Pty Ltd - NSD 285 of 2021 Parallel pleadings