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
-
Opposing a trade mark on grounds of bad faith
Court found respondent infringed copyright of Dee Snider’s works, awarding AUD $1.5 million for flagrant, contumelious infringements. Not fair or satirical.
-
Do I have an implied licence for software?
This article examines the implications of a Federal Court case, which awarded over $1.1 million in damages for unlicensed software use. Learn more about the decision and key principles for software licencing that businesses should consider.
-
Case study – intellectual property protection structures
Protect your valuable intellectual property and secure revenue for product development. Learn how Dundas Lawyers can help you create an intellectual property protection structure with potential benefits for your business.
-
A test for the infringement of circuit layout rights
This article explores the legal implications of circuit layouts, such as what qualifies as an eligible layout, the exclusive rights granted, and exceptions to infringement. Learn more by reading the case of Lumen Australia Pty Ltd v Frontline Australasia Pty Ltd [2018] FCA 1807, discussed in the article.
-
What exactly is a Norwich Pharmacal order?
In situations where an innocent third party has information about conduct which may assist a litigant, an applicant apply to the Court to have that third party disclose such information. For example, a bank which has knowledge of a transaction or conduct that would assist a litigant it may be obliged to hand over the…
-
Interlocutory injunctions and damages undertakings
An interlocutory injunction may be sought by a patent owner to stop a defendant from infringing their patent. This article examines the two elements that must be established by an Applicant and the considerations the Court will take into account when making its decision.
-
Calculating account of profits – trade mark infringement
This article examines the calculation of damages when an account of profits is awarded as a remedy for trade mark infringement. It covers the general principle, the proportionality rule, and the deduction of overhead costs.
-
Non-fungible tokens – a new way to hold IP?
Discover the rising phenomenon of Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs) and how they can help protect your Intellectual Property (IP). Learn how NFTs works, its benefits for rights holders, and potential legal issues. Get the full picture here.
-
Unjustified trade mark infringement threats
Comprehensive list of Australian Court decisions and related legislation covering corporate, technology, intellectual property, commercial, employment, negligence, confidentiality, copyright, moral rights, user generated content, click wrap/browse wrap, trademarks, torts and social media law.
