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
-
s115A Copyright Act – infringement outside Australia
This article examines the concept of shareholder oppression and provides examples of when the Court has found oppressive conduct, as well as when it has not. It also outlines the remedies the Court prefers when faced with oppressive conduct.
-
Do meta tags amount to trade mark infringement?
Find out how the case of Accor Australia & New Zealand Hospitality Pty Ltd v Liv Pty Ltd [2015] FCA 554 highlights the potential risk of trademark infringements to businesses. Read more to discover the case background, takeaways, and tips to protect your business.
-
Assigning intellectual property and the right to sue
This case examines Re Taypar Pty Ltd v Benko Santic [1989] FCA 543, which determined that an assignee of intellectual property rights cannot sue for pre-assignment infringements, unless the assignment explicitly assigns a right to do so.
-
Think twice before claiming delay due to COVID-19
In response to COVID-19, the Federal Court of Australia has adopted virtual proceedings and is reluctant to grant stays or adjournments. Read this article to learn more about the Court’s view and the pros and cons of virtual trials.
-
Evidence from the Wayback Machine accepted
Australian Courts are increasingly considering the use of evidence from the Wayback Machine, but questions remain as to whether they will accept such reports in practice and what will be allowed?
-
Particulars – their importance in civil litigation
This article provides an overview of the Federal Court’s rules and procedures for preliminary discovery, which allows potential applicants to determine if there is a good cause of action before filing a claim. Learn how to navigate the process and understand the Court’s expectations.
-
Adaptations and computer code – copyright issues
An adaption in copyright is the exclusive right of the owner of the work in question. Section 10 of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) (Act) defines adaption as it relates to literary works in dramatic and non-dramatic forms, in a computer program and in relation to a musical work. The rights that apply to adaptions…
-
Innocent copyright infringement explained
This article examines the legal defence of “innocent infringement” in the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth). Find out what evidence is needed to prove both the subjective and objective elements of this defence, and learn the key takeaways to consider when using it in copyright disputes.
-
Know-how vs confidential information
Understand the difference between “know-how” and confidential information when it comes to employer-employee relationships. Find out how to protect confidential trade secrets and use broad contractual terms to ensure protection. Click through to get the full details.
