Federal Court of Australia
Bickford’s Australia Pty Ltd v Trink Tank Pty Ltd (No 2) [2025] FCA 839
File number(s): | SAD 57 of 2025 |
Judgment of: | O'SULLIVAN J |
Date of judgment: | 15 July 2025 |
Date of publication of reasons: | 22 July 2025 |
Catchwords: | COSTS — where respondent reserved the right to make further submissions on costs depending on the decision of its interlocutory application — where Court heard further argument on costs — whether orders previously made should be set aside — costs orders confirmed — interlocutory application dismissed |
Legislation: | Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), r 39.04 |
Division: | General Division |
Registry: | South Australia |
National Practice Area: | Intellectual Property |
Sub-area: | Copyright and Industrial Designs |
Number of paragraphs: | 6 |
Date of hearing: | 15 July 2025 |
Counsel for the Applicant: | Mr A Baillie |
Solicitor for the Applicant: | Piper Alderman |
Counsel for the Respondents: | Mr A Middleton |
Solicitor for the Respondents: | Brixton Legal |
ORDERS
SAD 57 of 2025 | ||
| ||
BETWEEN: | BICKFORD'S AUSTRALIA PTY LTD (ACN 053 240 261) Applicant | |
AND: | TRINK TANK PTY LTD (ACN 645 360 925) First Respondent MATTHEW JAMES BAX Second Respondent | |
order made by: | O'SULLIVAN J |
DATE OF ORDER: | 15 July 2025 |
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The respondent’s interlocutory application filed 30 June 2025 is dismissed.
2. The respondent is to pay the applicant’s costs of and incidental to the interlocutory application on a party/party basis, in any event.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
O’SULLIVAN J:
1 This is an application pursuant to r 39.04 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) that orders 3 and 4 of orders made by the Court on 24 June 2025 be set aside.
2 At the outset, in its submissions on the original interlocutory applications heard in this matter, Trink Tank reserved the right to make further submissions on costs once the Court had made its interlocutory ruling. I failed to give them that opportunity before making costs orders. In all the circumstances, Trink Tank should be afforded that opportunity.
3 I have had the advantage of written submissions, oral submissions, and authorities from both parties. Nothing I have heard satisfies me that it is appropriate to set aside the orders made 24 June 2025.
4 My reasoning set out in the reasons published on 24 June 2025 remain.
5 It follows that Trink Tank’s interlocutory application filed 30 June 2025 is dismissed.
6 Trink Tank is to pay Bickford’s costs of and incidental to the interlocutory application on a party-party basis in any event.
I certify that the preceding six (6) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice O'Sullivan. |
Associate:
Dated: 22 July 2025
