© 2026 Zoe. All rights reserved.
Zoe is a legal information platform. Always consult the Federal Register of Legislation for authoritative text.
[2019] FCA 18
Federal Court of Australia
2019-01-18
Moshinsky J
Original judgment source is linked above.
In these orders: Lumen Australia means the First Applicant; Lumen International means the Second Applicant; Frontline means the First Respondent; Vision means the Second and Third Respondents; and Unless otherwise indicated, capitalised terms have the meaning given in the Reasons for Judgment dated 22 November 2018.
THE COURT ORDERS THAT: Injunctive Relief
MOSHINSKY J: 1 On 22 November 2018, I published reasons for judgment on liability and quantum in this matter: Lumen Australia Pty Ltd v Frontline Australasia Pty Ltd [2018] FCA 1807 (the Reasons). The parties have provided proposed minutes of orders to give effect to the Reasons. The parties are largely agreed as to the orders to be made, including as to costs. These reasons, which should be read together with the Reasons, deal with the form of orders to be made. I adopt the abbreviations used in the Reasons. 2 The applicants provided proposed minutes of orders on 11 December 2018 (including proposed declarations). These were largely agreed as between the applicants and Vision. At that stage, Frontline had not communicated its position on the proposed orders. 3 On 13 December 2018, Vision provided a short submission relating to the proposed minutes of orders. 4 Also on 13 December 2018, Frontline provided proposed minutes of orders (including proposed declarations) and a copy of the applicants' proposed orders marked up to show how Frontline's proposed orders departed from them. As stated in the covering email from Frontline's solicitors, little separated the parties. In particular, Frontline did not resist an order that it pay the applicants' costs on an indemnity basis. The differences between the proposed orders were explained in the covering email. 5 Vision indicated on the same day that it agreed with Frontline's proposed orders. 6 On 17 December 2018, the applicants' solicitors indicated that the applicants agreed with Frontline's proposed orders, save for one matter. The one matter concerned paragraph 15 of the proposed orders, which related to exemplary damages. In the applicants' original form of orders, they had proposed an order as follows: "On or before [a date 14 days from the date of these orders], Frontline must pay to Lumen Australia the sum of $500,000.00 in exemplary damages." In Frontline's proposed orders, the following order was proposed: "On or before 1 March 2019, Frontline must pay to Lumen Australia the sum of $500,000.00 in exemplary damages." In response, the applicants proposed that Frontline's proposed order be varied to read: "On or before 1 March 2019, Frontline must pay to Lumen Australia: (a) the sum of $500,000.00 in exemplary damages; (b) interest on the above amount accruing from [the date of these orders] until the date payment is made - at the rate of 7.5%." In my view, the variation proposed by the applicants is appropriate, as it recognises the period of time that will elapse between the date of the orders and the date for payment by Frontline of the exemplary damages. I note that the proposed rate of interest, and the period in respect of which interest would run, are consistent with paragraph 14(b)(iv) of the proposed orders, which is agreed between the parties. I also note that Frontline did not seek to make any submission in response to the applicants' solicitors' email dated 17 December 2018. 7 Accordingly, I will make declarations and orders as proposed by Frontline, save in respect of paragraph 15. In respect of that paragraph, I will make an order in the revised form proposed by the applicants. I certify that the preceding seven (7) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Moshinsky.
Lumen Australia Pty Ltd
Frontline Australasia Pty Ltd