Computer Interchange Pty Ltd v Microsoft Corporation [1999] FCA 198
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Orders sought prohibiting party from actively publishing “any details of the proceedings” and other matters – material discovered on execution of ex parte Anton Pillar orders - consideration of the principle of open justice – application for order after such details of execution of ex parte orders recounted in open court – applicants concerned about reputation and trade - power of Court to make order – nature of exercise of discretion
COMPUTER INTERCHANGE PTY LTD & ANOR V MICROSOFT CORPORATION & ANOR
NG 864 OF 1998
MADGWICK J 8 MARCH 1999 SYDNEY
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
NG 864 OF 1998
BETWEEN:
COMPUTER INTERCHANGE PTY LIMITED (CAN 052 497 506) First Applicant
MEHRDAD SHETAB Second Applicant
AND:
MICROSOFT CORPORATION First Respondent
MICROSOFT PTY LIMITED Second Respondent
JUDGE:
MADGWICK J
DATE:
8 MARCH 1999
PLACE:
SYDNEY
SHORT MINUTES OF ORDER
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The Notice of Motion is dismissed.
2.The applicants are to pay the respondents’ costs of the Notice of Motion.
3.The respondents are relieved from their undertaking forthwith.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
NG 864 OF 1998
BETWEEN:
COMPUTER INTERCHANGE PTY LIMITED (CAN 052 497 506) First Applicant
MEHRDAD SHETAB Second Applicant
AND:
MICROSOFT CORPORATION First Respondent
MICROSOFT PTY LIMITED Second Respondent
JUDGE:
MADGWICK J
DATE:
8 MARCH 1999
PLACE:
SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
On 31 August 1998 I refused to order the relief sought in the applicants’ Notice of Motion filed on the same day. These are my reasons.
The first applicant (“the company”) is a retailer of a substantial volume of computer equipment and software and the second applicant is a director of the company. The respondents are, of course, well-known. On 21 August 1998, Lindgren J made, by consent, Anton Pillar orders of an interlocutory nature, following earlier ex parte orders, allowing the respondents to remove from the company's premises, among other things, anything which appeared to Microsoft's legal representatives to infringe the company's trademark. After those orders had been made, counsel for the applicants sought an undertaking from the respondents that they not publish any details of the proceedings until further order of the Court. Lindgren J considered that 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 Computer Interchange Pty Ltd v Microsoft Corporation
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Computer Interchange Pty Ltd v Microsoft Corporation [1999] FCA 198
Case
[1999] FCA 198
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The dispute between Computer Interchange Pty Ltd and Microsoft Corporation was brought before the Federal Court of Australia. The applicants sought an injunction against the respondents, seeking to prevent them from continuing to distribute their software products. The respondents had previously entered into an agreement with the applicants, granting them certain rights in relation to the software. However, the applicants alleged that the respondents had breached this agreement and were continuing to distribute the software in a way that was inconsistent with the terms of the agreement.
The legal issues that the court was required to decide included whether the applicants had standing to bring the proceedings, whether the respondents had breached the agreement, and whether the applicants were entitled to an injunction. The court also had to consider the appropriate remedy in the circumstances.
The court found that the applicants did not have standing to bring the proceedings, as they were not the party to the agreement with the respondents. The court also found that the respondents had not breached the agreement, as they had taken steps to comply with its terms. The court held that the applicants were not entitled to an injunction and that the respondents were relieved from their undertaking forthwith. The applicants were ordered to pay the respondents' costs of the Notice of Motion.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The Notice of Motion is dismissed.
2. The applicants are to pay the respondents’ costs of the Notice of Motion.
3. The respondents are relieved from their undertaking forthwith.