Benson v Liszka

[2007] FCA 1050

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Benson v Liszka [2007] FCA 1050

RICHARD BENSON v DAN LISZKA
QUD 137 OF 2007

SPENDER J
6 JULY 2007
BRISBANE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY	QUD 137 OF 2007

BETWEEN:	RICHARD BENSON Applicant
AND:	DAN LISZKA Respondent

JUDGE:	SPENDER J
DATE OF ORDER:	6 JULY 2007
WHERE MADE:	BRISBANE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The application for interlocutory relief be dismissed, with costs.

2.The proceedings be struck out, with costs.

Note:    Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY	QUD 137 OF 2007

BETWEEN:	RICHARD BENSON Applicant
AND:	DAN LISZKA Respondent

JUDGE:	SPENDER J
DATE:	6 JULY 2007
PLACE:	BRISBANE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. On 14 May 2007, the applicant, Richard Benson, filed a Statement of Claim against Dan Liszka, as respondent.  That Statement of Claim is in these terms:

   1A.      The application is related to Breach of the Copyright, Breach of Confidential Agreement, Fraud and Attempt to Commit Fraud by Mr. Dan Liszka, Managing Director which is representing Alchemy Innovation and Development Pty Ltd. 

   The applicant claims the following:

   1.I am the inventor of the World’s newest Medical Device Class 1, a nasal device which aims to prevent chronic Snoring and Obstructive Sleep Apnoea.

   2.I have registered this Innovation Patent through Canberra Patent Office as well as through PCT-Geneva 2005.

   3.Hard work was performed to ensure the maximum success will prevail and over two years work was performed to finalise this project.

   4.A letter was received from Mr. Dan Liszka which introduced himself as a Managing Director of Alchemy Innovation Development Pty Ltd, NSW (with whom I never met personally!) and offered his services to promote my invention.

   5.Clear reference was made that the Innovation Patent was published public but there was no confidential information or technology information of the Product and requested to provide it to him.

   6.A Pre-Contractual Confidential Disclosure Deed was sent and signed by Mr. Dan Liszka and returned to me which was made clear that he must protect all confidentiality of the Innovation.

   7.A confirmation letter was sent to Mr. Liszka to confirm receiving the confidential form signed and because we didn’t get the chance to meet personally, Appropriate warning was issued to care about my Innovation.  Several documents and hard copies has been sent to Mr. Liszka’s office to commence his scheduled work, as he requested.

   8.A list with international potential manufacturers was provided to me and several were cut back as not appropriate chosen for this type of product and remained a list of 32 altogether of which we both agreed.

   9.A general Quotation list was sent by Mr. Liszka to me to prove the amount of work involved and a fee was requested (as well as twice more afterwards) all paid in full as requested.

   10.A 65 pages Information Memorandum which contained strictly confidential information and sensitive…