The Victorian Court of Appeal recently confirmed the importance of counsel’s duty to ensure serious allegations of misconduct are only made if reasonably justified by available material.
Attempted challenge by a financial services provider to a determination by the Financial Ombudsman Service under its terms of reference
The decision of the Victorian Court of Appeal in favour of the Financial Ombudsman Service Ltd (FOS) highlights the difficulties for financial services providers in trying to challenge decisions of FOS and the dispute resolution process under the terms of reference (TOR). The TOR operate as a binding contract with a finality clause in favour of FOS’ decisions and determinations.
The Victorian Court of Appeal has held that the 10 year limitation for commencing a building action in s. 134 of the Building Act 1993 (“Building Act”) is not confined to negligence claims, but also applies to actions founded in contract. The Court of Appeal also held that, on the facts of the case, no duty of care was owed by the building surveyor to the owner to prevent the type of loss suffered by the owner.
Can shares acquired with income below threshold amount to after-acquired property vesting in trustee under the Bankruptcy Act?
Examination of whether shares purchased from a bankrupt’s income below the threshold amount in respect of which he was required to make contributions to his trustee under Division 4B of Part 6 of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) is within the meaning of “after acquired property” in s 58(1).
Non compliance of terms of settlement by a borrower in relation to repossession proceedings commenced by a lender
Co-authored by Kieran Hickie and Andrew Kirby. The decision of the Victorian Court of Appeal in favour of the NAB highlights some difficulties that might arise between lenders and recalcitrant borrowers in relation to terms of settlement for the compromise of repossession proceedings. The Court of Appeal’s decision demonstrates that borrowers who enter terms of settlement must comply with the conditions of the terms of settlement.
Alphapharm submitted that, although AstraZeneca had succeeded, it had no need to litigate at all because Alphapharm had made it clear that it would desist from conduct of the kind that was alleged to be in infringement of patents, until such time as the result of the appeal in Ranbaxy was known. Nevertheless AstraZeneca commenced proceedings against Alphapharm. AstraZeneca submitted that not only was it entitled to its costs in the normal course, but also that those costs should be taxed on the special basis for which section 19(2) of the Patents Act provides.
Federal Court rejects backdoor attempt to attack arbitral findings of fact on Public Policy/Natural Justice ground
The Full Court of the Federal Court has refused to set aside or resist enforcement of an international arbitral award on the basis of an allegation that there was a breach of natural justice in making certain findings of fact and that the award was therefore against Australian public policy.
Shareholder protection in increasingly complex capital markets proved a timely focus for the ninth Supreme Court of New South Wales Annual Corporate Law Conference, held in Sydney on 29 July 2014.
Lisica v Commissioner of Patents  FCA 433 7 May 2014 – On appeal to the Court, the applicant did not seek to lead any expert evidence, which might have explained the area of the useful arts to which his invention would make a contribution or at least assist in understanding the language of the specification and the claims. Justice Jessup concluded that in those circumstances, the claim was neither clear nor succinct as required by s 40(3) of the Act: “As a statement marking out the area of the public monopoly which the applicant seeks, the claim falls well short of the standard of clarity required.” His Honour echoed the view expressed by the delegate that the applicant’s attempt to draft the specification and claims without professional assistance, had not helped him.
Telstra and, more recently, Sensis have published the well known Yellow Pages phone directories since 1975, and also used the “Walking Fingers” logo since shortly after that date. The applicants’ more recent online directories and mobile applications similarly have featured a yellow theme. Yellow has been a strong theme in the applicants’ marketing from an early date. Telstra and Sensis brought claims of misleading and deceptive conduct and passing off against three publishers of print and online phone directories (the PDC respondents). The relevant publications had yellow covers and yellow pages in the case of the print publications, and yellow icons, background and other visual elements in the case of online directories and mobile applications.
Is redemption of certain interests in a managed investment scheme “withdrawal” from the scheme for the purposes of Part 5C.6 of the Corporations Act 2001?
The High Court has held that redemption of units in a managed investment scheme did not constitute “withdrawal” within the meaning of Part 5C.6 of the Corporations Act 2001.
Late last year, the Federal Court ordered that the fourth respondent, Bob Jane, and the companies he controlled, be restrained from trading as a business under any name that is or includes the word JANE. The corporate respondents were also ordered to forthwith change their names, transfer certain domain names and deliver up promotional material to Bob Jane Corporation. Early this year, Bob Jane Corporation brought charges of contempt of court against each of Bob Jane and various of the corporate respondents he controlled for failure to comply with those orders. Bob Jane Corporation sought a declaration of guilt and imposition of a fine in relation to each alleged contempt.
The first applicant, Damorgold, successfully established that JAI Products had infringed the patent in suit. A residual issue left for later determination was whether the second applicant, Vertilux, was an exclusive licensee of the patent and therefore also entitled to have initiated proceedings pursuant to section 120 of the Patents Act 1990. A written licence was in place between Damorgold and Vertilux that imparted on Vertilux an exclusive licence to exploit the patent, and also purported to record the terms of an oral licence between the parties said to have been in place at least since the start of 2006. Under the licence, Vertilux was entitled to grant sublicences, with Damorgold’s written consent (although Damorgold could waive that requirement).
This was an appeal from the ultimate disposition at first instance of Deckers’ successful copyright and trade mark infringement claims against various respondents in respect of their use of various UGG marks and the manufacture and sale of counterfeit UGG boots.