A decision of the Court of Appeal of South Australia has set a relatively high bar both for the clarity of the manifestation of the parties’ agreement that there be an appeal on a question of law under s 34A(1)(a) and the obviousness of the error required to be shown to obtain leave under s 34A(3)(c)(i).
Patents – manner of manufacture – s 102(1) – s 105
The Full Court of the Federal Court confirms that a statutory set-off under s 553C(1) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) is not available against a liquidator’s claim for the recovery of an unfair preference under s 588FA of the Act.
In resolving the determination of a priority dispute between a beneficiary of a trust and an equitable mortgagee, the Court applied principles regarding “postponing” conduct to beneficiaries (and the rule in Shropshire’s case) and considered the relevance of surrounding commercial circumstances, including the failure to caveat.
This note considers the CAS decision to uphold the lifting of the provisional suspension of Kamila Valieva, a 15 year old Russian figure skater. The provisional suspension had come at a critical time for the athlete, who was otherwise a favourite for a gold medal at the Beijing Winter Olympic Games.
Whether description of premises in an agreement for lease sufficiently certain.
Intellectual property – copyright – infringement – separate questions
Copyright Infringement – Compensatory Damages – Additional Damages
Patents – interlocutory injunction – weak prima facie case – invalid extension of term – balance of convenience otherwise finely balanced
Patents – s 104 amendments – allowability of amendment excluding a compound not specifically mentioned in the specification prior to amendment but generally described – whether parties bound by findings made in substantive s 59 opposition
Trade marks – use in the course of trade – substantial identity or deceptive similarity – use of signs in relation to services – s 41 – s 102 – s 122(1)(a)(i) – s 122(1)(fa) – s 124 – Australian Consumer Law – s 18 – s 29(1)(g) – s 29(1)(h) – joint tortfeasor – aiding and abetting – knowingly concerned
The Court of Appeal’s December 2021 decision in WEQ returned to the vexed issue of the scope and duration of a proceeding suppression order.
In ASIC v King, the Federal Court recognised the Court’s jurisdiction to bankrupt a debtor on the petition of a creditor who is owed a debt that is not provable in bankruptcy (in this case, a pecuniary penalty order), finding that it is a matter of discretion whether to make a sequestration order.
Justice Moshinsky found that the Insured notified the Insurer of facts that might give rise to a claim against the Insured in a class action. His Honour also found that the Insurer breached its duty of utmost good faith. Thus, his Honour upheld the Insured’s claim for the Insurer to pay his legal costs in the class action.
The owners of land abutting the Tullamarine Freeway sought damages in the Supreme Court of Victoria for trespass and the relocation of CityLink’s noise wall after it was discovered to be encroaching onto their land. Their case was largely unsuccessful due to the Limitation of Actions Act.