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
-
Security for legal costs in patent invalidity cross-claims
This article examines the application of section 232 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) in 50/50 or equal ownership disputes. The WA Supreme Court has found that oppressive conduct can still be asserted in equal ownership situations.
-
Use of competitor’s confidential information
Many businesses try to increase market share by employing a competitor’s member of staff who may bring with them relationships and information acquired over the years. Employees owe fiduciary duties to their employers meaning, among other things, that an employee cannot make a personal gain by using confidential information acquired in the course of their…
-
Patent infringement lawyer
This article explores the complexities of patent infringement in Australia. Learn more about the patent layout, essential integers, and remedies available to protect your intellectual property.
-
Changes to copyright protection durations
The Australian Government passed a major amendment to the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) which will have a significant impact on copyright materials. Find out what the changes are and how they may affect you by reading this article.
-
Patent revocation due to lack of novelty
One of the often cited requirements for a patent to be granted, is that the invention as claimed must be ‘novel’ in light of the information of the day (referred to as the prior art and the common general knowledge) (section 18(1)(b)(i) of the Patents Act 1990 (Cth) (Patents Act)). Put simply, if its been…
-
Patents and the threshold for registration
Learn about the different types of patents available in Australia, their requirements for patentability, and how to protect your invention with this article. Discover what can and cannot be patented, and the legal implications of obtaining a patent. Get the facts you need to know about patents in Australia.
-
Understanding patent revocation
Engaging in transfers of intellectual property? Beware of transferring goodwill too. The case of Favotto Family Restaurants Pty Ltd v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue [2020] NSWSC 120 highlights the concept of goodwill and its three (3) aspects, as well as how it affects the ability to generate earnings from identifiable assets.
-
Consequences of litigation inaction in QLD courts
Find out the consequences of not taking action in a Queensland Court litigation, and learn what to consider when applying for an order to advance or defend against a stale matter.
-
Interlocutory injunctions in patent dispute cases
Australian Intelligence Community (AIC) Commissioner Falk determined in Uber investigation how the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC) will assess if entities have an Australian Link to be legally bound by the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth).
