Evans Deakin Pty Ltd v Orekinetics Pty Ltd - [2002] QSC 42

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Evans Deakin P/L v Orekinetics P/L & Ors [2002] QSC 042

PARTIES:

EVANS DEAKIN PTY LTD ACN 000 002 031
(plaintiff)
v
OREKINETICS PTY LTD ACN 089 630 928
(first defendant)
AND
PETER JON GATES
(second defendant)
AND
PETER SCOTT DAVIS
(third defendant)

FILE NO:

S6082 of 2001

DIVISION:

Trial

DELIVERED ON:

13 February 2002

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

31 January 2002

JUDGE:

Chesterman J

ORDER:

1. That an order for inspection be made subject to the submission of further material relevant to the terms on which an inspection should be ordered.

2.   That the application is adjourned to a date to be fixed to allow the parties to prepare material relevant to the terms on which an inspection should be ordered.

3.    That the plaintiff has leave to amend its application to include an order:

(i)   that within seven days of the date of this order the defendants by their solicitors provide the plaintiff with a list setting out in relation to each of the Corona-Stat and the Ultra-State devices:

(a) to whom these devices had been sold; and

  (b) the location of such devices.

4.    That within seven days of the date of this order the defendants by their solicitors provide the plaintiff with a list setting out in relation to each of the Corona-Stat
and the Ultra-State devices:  (a) to whom these devices had been sold; and        (b) the location of such devices.

5.       That the costs of and incidental to the application be reserved.

CATCHWORDS:

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY – CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION - Plaintiff applied for leave to inspect defendant’s property under r250 UCPR – whether there was sufficient evidence to warrant an order – whether preconditions to exercising discretion under r250 were satisfied – plaintiff showed sufficient grounds to justify an order for inspection.

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules r 250

American Chain and Cable Co Inc v Halls’ Barton Ropery Co Limited (1938) 55 RPC 287, considered
British Xylonite Co Ltd v Fibrenyle Ltd (1959) RPC 252, followed
The Germ Milling Co (Ltd) v Robinson (1884) 1 RPC 217, considered
Unilever Plc v Pearce [1985] FSR 475, considered
Wahl & Simon-Solitec Ltd v Buhler-Miag (England) Ltd [1979] FSR 183, followed
Warner-Lambert Co v Glaxo Laboratories Ltd [1975] RPC 354, considered

COUNSEL:

S Burley for the applicant
D M Logan for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

McCullough Robertson for the applicant
Hynes Lawyers for the respondent

CHESTERMAN J: The plaintiff claims injunctions and allied relief against the defendants to prevent their use of confidential information. It is a well known engineering concern a division of which has been engaged in the research, development, manufacture and sale of equipment, the purpose of which is to separate the mineral content, particularly titanium, from sand in which it occurs. Separation is effected by electromagnetic charges which attract the metal but not the sand. Mineral bearing sand is poured into a machine where it passes through an electromagnetic field over plates and rollers with the result 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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Evans Deakin Pty Ltd v Orekinetics Pty Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2002] QSC 42
Decision Date: 13 February 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Evans Deakin Pty Ltd sought leave to inspect the property of Orekinetics Pty Ltd under Rule 250 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules. The application was in relation to an alleged breach of an agreement and misuse of confidential information. The Federal Court of Australia was tasked with determining whether the plaintiff had provided sufficient evidence to warrant an order for inspection. Additionally, the court had to assess whether the preconditions for exercising discretion under Rule 250 were satisfied. The plaintiff argued that it had shown sufficient grounds to justify an order for inspection.

The court found that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case for the alleged breach of contract and misuse of confidential information. It was noted that the plaintiff had provided evidence of a prior agreement between the parties and that the defendant had potentially acted in breach of this agreement by using confidential information obtained from the plaintiff. The court considered that there was a real prospect that the plaintiff's claims would be successful at trial, which was a key factor in determining whether an order for inspection should be granted. The court held that the plaintiff had satisfied the necessary preconditions to warrant an order for inspection.

Consequently, the court granted leave for the plaintiff to inspect the defendant's property, subject to the submission of further material relevant to the terms on which an inspection should be ordered. The application was adjourned to allow the parties to prepare this material. The court also ordered that the defendants provide a list of information relating to the devices in question, including the names of any purchasers and the locations of the devices. Finally, the costs of and incidental to the application were reserved.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. That an order for inspection be made subject to the submission of further material relevant to the terms on which an inspection should be ordered.

2. That the application is adjourned to a date to be fixed to allow the parties to prepare material relevant to the terms on which an inspection should be ordered.

3. That the plaintiff has leave to amend its application to include an order:

(i) that within seven days of the date of this order the defendants by their solicitors provide the plaintiff with a list setting out in relation to each of the Corona-Stat and the Ultra-State devices:

(a) to whom these devices had been sold; and

(b) the location of such devices.

4. That within seven days of the date of this order the defendants by their solicitors provide the plaintiff with a list setting out in relation to each of the Corona-Stat

and the Ultra-State devices: (a) to whom these devices had been sold; and (b) the location of such devices.

5. That the costs of and incidental to the application be reserved.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	Evans Deakin P/L v Orekinetics P/L & Ors [2002] QSC 042
PARTIES:	EVANS DEAKIN PTY LTD ACN 000 002 031 (plaintiff) v OREKINETICS PTY LTD ACN 089 630 928 (first defendant) AND PETER JON GATES (second defendant) AND PETER SCOTT DAVIS (third defendant)
FILE NO:	S6082 of 2001
DIVISION:	Trial
DELIVERED ON:	13 February 2002
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	31 January 2002
JUDGE:	Chesterman J
ORDER:	1. That an order for inspection be made subject to the submission of further material relevant to the terms on which an inspection should be ordered. 2. That the application is adjourned to a date to be fixed to allow the parties to prepare material relevant to the terms on which an inspection should be ordered. 3. That the plaintiff has leave to amend its application to include an order: (i) that within seven days of the date of this order the defendants by their solicitors provide the plaintiff with a list setting out in relation to each of the Corona-Stat and the Ultra-State devices: (a) to whom these devices had been sold; and (b) the location of such devices. 4. That within seven days of the date of this order the defendants by their solicitors provide the plaintiff with a list setting out in relation to each of the Corona-Stat and the Ultra-State devices: (a) to whom these devices had been sold; and (b) the location of such devices. 5. That the costs of and incidental to the application be reserved.
CATCHWORDS:	INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY – CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION - Plaintiff applied for leave to inspect defendant’s property under r250 UCPR – whether there was sufficient evidence to warrant an order – whether preconditions to exercising discretion under r250 were satisfied – plaintiff showed sufficient grounds to justify an order for inspection. Uniform Civil Procedure Rules r 250 American Chain and Cable Co Inc v Halls’ Barton Ropery Co Limited (1938) 55 RPC 287, considered British Xylonite Co Ltd v Fibrenyle Ltd (1959) RPC 252, followed The Germ Milling Co (Ltd) v Robinson (1884) 1 RPC 217, considered Unilever Plc v Pearce [1985] FSR 475, considered Wahl & Simon-Solitec Ltd v Buhler-Miag (England) Ltd [1979] FSR 183, followed Warner-Lambert Co v Glaxo Laboratories Ltd [1975] RPC 354, considered
COUNSEL:	S Burley for the applicant D M Logan for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	McCullough Robertson for the applicant Hynes Lawyers for the respondent