The recent copyright case of Hamlan Homes Pty Ltd trading as Hamlan Homes and Geelong Homes v Levonix Homes Pty Ltd (No 3) [2025] FedCFamC2G 565 (Hamlan v Levonix)involved a dispute between Hamlan Homes Pty Ltd 006 313 015 (Hamlan) and Levonix Homes Pty Ltd ACN 168 777 384 (Levonix) that provides insight into preservation of “meta data” in civil litigation.
Hamlan v Levonix involved two (2) key issues, including:
- the request for reproduction of unredacted documents; and
- the request for the respondents to re-produce documents in their “native format”.
The first issue of requesting reproduction of unredacted documentswas considered by Manousaridis J and it was held that the documents were not directly relevant to any of the issues in dispute, so they did not have to be disclosed. That left only the second issue of re-producing documents in their native format.
Re-producing documents in Native format
Levonix engaged an e-discovery provider, NuixDiscover (formerly Ringtail) (Nuix), to process and convert the original documents into stamped PDFs. The stamped documents were listed in a table and provided in PDF format containing only basic metadata, such as title, document type, and attachments.[1]
Hamlan’s Solicitors subsequently requested the document list in a native Excel format, along with load files that would allow them to upload the documents to their own Nuix e-discovery software.[2]
Once this was provided to Hamlan’s solicitors, on loading the documents onto their own Nuix software, several issues were uncovered including:[3]
- redactions without clear justification;
- incomplete sets of documents;
- incomplete document families;
- documents that were non-searchable; and
- a lack of host identifiers to group document families together in the database.
Following this, Hamlan’s Solicitors made another request, this time that all documents be reproduced in their native format, including all metadata.[4] Counsel for Levonix argued that this would be unreasonable and create an administrative burden.[5]
Court’s ruling and reasoning
The argument by Levonix’ counsel was rejected by Manousaridis J, who ordered the documents to be reproduced in their “native format”.
In making the decision, Manousaridis J considered the definition of a “document” and the nature of electronically stored information. It was noted that meta data is recognised as an integral part of a “document“, meaning that the metadata is just as discoverable as the document itself. Manousaridis J concluded that producing a native file would be the most effective way to produce the its corresponding metadata.
Additionally, Manousaridis J distinguished between a “Native Format Electronic Document” and a “Derivative Electronic Document”, with the derivative format in this case referring to the converted stamped PDFs. Manousaridis J flagged that converting files into a derivative format often results in the loss of important information embedded in the native document, such as metadata, comments, and changes in a document.
Notes about how the PDF conversion process removes meta data
When native format documents are converted to PDFs, key meta data is stripped or lost, including:
- application meta data (author, creation/modification dates, comments, tracked changes);
- email metadata (headers, send/receive times, folder paths, message IDs);
- file system metadata (original file paths, timestamps, source location);
- document relationships (email and attachments) and parent-child links; and
- searchability (if documents are rendered as image-based PDFs without OCR).
As a result, care needs to be taken when discovering PDFs because they can be incomplete representations and not contain the required meta data.
Implications of Hamlan v Levonix
The decision in Hamlan v Levonix is authority for the proposition that parties to legal proceedings must produce all documents in discovery in Federal Court proceedings in their native format. This decision whilst nothing knew, reinforces the importance of preserving and providing electronically stored information in a way that maintains its’ integrity, including all embedded meta data.
Links and further references
Legislation
Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth) s 2B
Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Rules) 2021 (Cth) rr 14.02, 14.04
Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) r 20.14
Cases
Further information about discovery in legal proceedings
If you need advice on providing discovery in legal proceedings so as preserve meta data please contact us for a confidential and obligation free and discussion:
Malcolm Burrows B.Bus.,MBA.,LL.B.,LL.M.,MQLS.
Legal Practice Director
T: +61 7 3221 0013 (preferred)
M: +61 419 726 535
E: mburrows@dundaslawyers.com.au
Disclaimer
This article contains general commentary only. You should not rely on the commentary as legal advice. Specific legal advice should be obtained to ascertain how the law applies to your particular circumstances
[1] Hamlan v Levonix [No 3] FedCFamC2G 565at [27]-[30].
[2] Hamlan v Levonix [No 3] FedCFamC2G 565at [32].
[3] Hamlan v Levonix [No 3] FedCFamC2G 565at [34].
[4] Hamlan v Levonix [No 3] FedCFamC2G 565at [41].
[5] Hamlan v Levonix [No 3] FedCFamC2G 565at [42].
Related insights about civil litigation
-
Computer code libraries and copyright ownership
The Australian case of Redrock Holdings Pty Ltd and Hotline Communications Ltd v Hinkley [2001] VSC 91 has shed light on how the ownership of copyright in code libraries is determined. Learn more about the dispute and its implications for copyright ownership in this blog post.
-
Compilations from the public domain – confidential or not?
The Court of Appeal in Ezystay Systems Pty Ltd v Link 2 Pty Ltd [2014] NSWSC 180 had to re-examine the test for confidential information. It found that for information to be protected, it must have the necessary attributes of confidentiality and must be the product of skill and ingenuity of the human brain.
-
Patentability of computer-implemented inventions
The question of patentability of so called “computer-implemented” inventions has been the subject of legal debate in Australia for a number of years. The September 2018 of the Full Court of the Federal Court in Encompass Corporation Pty Ltd v Infotrack Pty Ltd [2019] FCAFC 161 was long anticipated by intellectual property lawyers and patent…
-
Phasing out the innovation patent system
The Senate has recommended a bill that could have a major impact on small and medium-sized businesses. Find out what changes are proposed and what it could mean for your intellectual property.
-
Litigation – offers to settle and the rules
This article examines the legal implications of making an offer to settle under the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), exploring the differences between a Rule-based offer and a Calderbank offer. It provides an in-depth look into the costs of litigation for both Plaintiffs and Defendants.
-
Software litigation – how much evidence is sufficient?
The Court was asked to decide if the applicant had enough info to begin proceedings for copyright infringement and breach of confidence in Qudos Mutual Ltd v Infosys Ltd [2019] FCA 702. Qudos was not satisfied with what they had, so the Court ordered the production of further documents and source code.
-
Has my software been copied? – legal test explained
This article examines the legal test for a “substantial reproduction” of computer code, as established by the High Court in Data Access Corporation v Powerflex Services Pty Ltd [1999] HCA 49 and further discussed in subsequent cases. The Court will consider the essential features of the work to determine if there has been a substantial…
-
Not so swole – Trade marks removed for non-use
The Federal Court examined the evidence needed to prove intention to use a trade mark in good faith. Find out what happened when an application for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal was refused.
-
Confusing marks – Sensis v Senses
Sensis Pty Ltd v Senses Direct Mail and Fulfillment Pty Ltd [2019] FCA 719: Court ruled SENSES marks deceptively similar to SENSIS marks, highlighting importance of engaging intellectual property lawyers when building a brand. Marks can be infringing if spelling is only slightly different, if it resembles another and likely to deceive and cause confusion.
