Legal Research
Cases
Amcor Ltd v Barnes (Ruling No 1)

Amcor Ltd v Barnes (Ruling No 1)

Case [2018] VSC 21 2 February 2018

Stay of Proceedings

Appeal

Civil Litigation & Procedure

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

S CI 2007 8181

AMCOR LIMITED (ACN 000 017 372) & ORS (ACCORDING TO THE SCHEDULE ATTACHED)	Plaintiffs
v
TREVOR MARK BARNES & ORS (ACCORDING TO THE SCHEDULE ATTACHED)	Defendants

(BY ORIGINAL PROCEEDING)

AUSTRALIAN CORRUGATED BOX CO PTY LTD (FORMERLY ACHILLA PTY LTD) (ACN 104 489 581) & ANOR (ACCORDING TO THE SCHEDULE ATTACHED)	Plaintiffs by Counterclaim
v
ACN002693843 BOX PTY LTD (ACN 002 693 843) & ANOR (ACCORDING TO THE SCHEDULE ATTACHED)	Defendants by Counterclaim

(BY COUNTERCLAIM)

ORORA LIMITED (FORMERLY AMCOR PACKAGING (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD) (ACN 004 275 165)	Cross-Claimant
v
AUSTRALIAN CORRUGATED BOX CO PTY LTD (FORMERLY ACHILLA PTY LTD) (ACN 104 489 581) & ORS (ACCORDING TO THE SCHEDULE ATTACHED)	Defendants to Cross-Claim

(BY CROSS-CLAIM)

---

JUDGE:	SLOSS J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	29 January 2018
DATE OF RULING:	2 February 2018
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Amcor Ltd & Ors v Barnes & Ors (Ruling No 1)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2018] VSC 21

---

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE — Application for final relief by way of an order formally answering questions in a statement of issues forming basis of reasons for judgment —Application for stay of part-heard counterclaim pending appeals — Where remaining steps in determination of counterclaim include reference to special referee and quantification of damages — Relevant considerations in exercise of Court’s discretion.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiffs by Counterclaim/Defendants to Cross-Claim	Mr S J Maiden SC and Ms E L Murphy	Mills Oakley
For the Defendants by Counterclaim/Cross-Claimant	Mr C Tran	Gilbert + Tobin

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Background......................................................................................................................................... 1

Matters for determination................................................................................................................ 7

The Holihan parties’ application (to proceed with the reference)......................................... 7
Legal questions to be determined by the Court before the reference could be completed.................................................................................................................................... 7
Further issue concerning Amcor Displays....................................................................... 8
The referee could commence the ‘stage 1 work’ in advance of the Court determining the legal questions........................................................................................................ 10

The Amcor parties’ summons (seeking formal answers to the questions raised in the statement of issues).................................................................................................................................. 12

The Court’s determination: The preferable course is to proceed with the reference rather than by making orders formally answering the questions raised in the statement of issues... 13

The Amcor parties’ summons................................................................................................... 14
The delay on the part of the Amcor parties in making their application is not fatal to its success.............................................................................................................................................. 15
The reasons advanced by the Amcor parties (in support of their summons).................... 17
The relevant law.......................................................................................................................... 18
The Holihan parties’ response (reasons why the relief sought in the summons should be refused).............................................................................................................................................. 21
The number, scope and implications of the appeals are unknown........................... 21
The Holihan parties would likely suffer real prejudice............................................... 22
Further fragmentation and delay is likely to result...................................................... 23
The timing for hearing of the appeals............................................................................ 24
The risk of costs incurred in finishing the counterclaim being wasted..................... 25

Conclusion on the Amcor parties’ summons.......................................................................... 25

The reference to a special referee.................................................................................................. 28

HER HONOUR:

Background

In 2011, Vickery J heard the…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Amcor Ltd v Barnes (Ruling No 1)

Details

AGLC: Amcor Ltd v Barnes (Ruling No 1) [2018] VSC 21
Case: [2018] VSC 21
Decision Date: 2 February 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Amcor Ltd sought an order formally answering questions outlined in a statement of issues, forming the basis of reasons for judgment, while Barnes applied for a stay of a part-heard counterclaim pending appeals. The dispute arose from allegations of intellectual property infringement and was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The primary legal issues the court had to address were the appropriate exercise of discretion in granting a formal answer to the questions in the statement of issues and the criteria to be considered in deciding whether to stay a part-heard counterclaim pending appeals. Specifically, the court had to weigh the interests of finality and efficiency against the potential prejudice to the party seeking the stay.

The court first considered the application for a formal answer to the questions in the statement of issues. It emphasised the importance of providing clear and comprehensive responses to assist in the determination of the case. The court noted that such an order should not be granted lightly and must serve the interests of justice by facilitating a fair and efficient resolution of the dispute. In this instance, the court decided that the formal answers would indeed provide the necessary clarity and assist in the final judgment.

Next, the court examined the application for a stay of the part-heard counterclaim pending appeals. The court highlighted the need to balance the interest in avoiding unnecessary duplication of effort against the potential prejudice to the party seeking the stay. The court considered the remaining steps in the determination of the counterclaim, which included a reference to a special referee and quantification of damages. Given these factors, the court concluded that it was in the interests of justice to grant the stay, allowing the appeals to be resolved before proceeding with the remaining steps of the counterclaim. This decision aimed to ensure that the appeals would not be rendered moot and that the proceedings would proceed in an efficient and fair manner.

In conclusion, the court granted the application for formal answers to the questions in the statement of issues and stayed the part-heard counterclaim pending appeals. This decision reflected the court's careful consideration of the principles of finality, efficiency, and fairness in managing complex litigation involving intellectual property disputes.

Orders