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
-
Federal Gov rules out copyright text and data mining exception for AI
On 26 October 2025, the Attorney-General, Hon Michelle Rowland MP, published a media release reiterating that the current Federal Government will not introduce a text and data mining (TDM) exception to copyright infringement in the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) (Copyright Act). The Attorney-General’s Department will instead engage in further consultations with members of the Copyright…
-
Malcolm Burrows on ABC’s “Legal Eagles” segment – copyright law and the Anthropic case
On 10 September 2025, Malcolm Burrows appeared live on Katherine Feeney’s ABC Radio program, “Legal Eagles” as the Technology and Intellectual Property Lawyer to discuss legal issues associated with copyright subsisting in artificial intelligence (AI) training data.
-
Evidence of economic loss required in defamation cases
Australian Security Academy Pty Ltd v Australasian Institute of Chartered Loss Adjusters Pty Ltd (No 2) [2025] FCA 924 (Australian Security Academy) involved alleged defamatory imputations against Australian Security Academy Pty Ltd (Applicant) by the Australian Institute of Chartered Loss Adjusters Pty Ltd (Respondent). The decision highlights that no defamatory imputations will exist where no…
-
Apple and Google misused market power to monopolise app stores
On 12 August 2025, Justice Beach of the Federal Court of Australia (Court) delivered four (4) landmark judgments. The decisions of Epic Games, Inc & Anor v Apple Inc & Anor (EG v Apple) and Epic Games, Inc & Anor v Google LLC & Ors (EG v Google), together the (EG Cases), alongside Anthony &…
-
What is a concise statement?
A concise statement is a brief, plain language document, often drafted in narrative form, used by the Federal Court of Australia (Federal Court) to ‘triage’ a case.[1] Concise statements were introduced as part of the Federal Courts Commercial and Corporations Practice Note (Practice Note), which came into effect on 25 October 2016. Its stated purpose…
-
Default judgment – contumacious non-compliance with Court orders
The recent Federal Court case of Pieman v Monks Resources PL v Monks [2025] FCA 88 (Pieman v Monks v Monks) shows the lengths a plaintiff must go to before the Court will order default judgment based on ongoing failure by a defendant to comply with orders. The case involved allegations of misleading and deceptive…
-
Appointment of experts by arbitral tribunal
Article 26 (Article 26) of the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (Model Law) empowers an arbitral tribunal (Tribunal) to appoint its own expert in a dispute.[1] The expert’s role is to create a report and provide oral testimony. While parties may appoint their own experts, doing so can contravene principles of impartiality and…
-
Canva – who owns the artwork created by users?
The general rule about ownership of copyright in a literary or artistic work is that copyright vests in the ‘original author’, as per section 35(2) of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) (Copyright Act). From there, ownership depends on whether or not the original author is doing the work within the scope of their employment, in…
-
Understanding contributory liability in patent infringement
In Australia, the Patent Act 1990 (Cth) provides protection for inventors by preventing others from using, making, or selling patented inventions without permission. The Act also extends liability to parties that are not directly infringing patents but may contribute to or enable patent infringement by supplying a product.
