Faxtech Pty Ltd v ITL Optronics Ltd

Case [2011] FCA 1320

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Faxtech Pty Ltd v ITL Optronics Ltd [2011] FCA 1320

Citation: Faxtech Pty Ltd v ITL Optronics Ltd [2011] FCA 1320
Parties: FAXTECH PTY LTD (TRADING AS POINT TRADING) (ACN 007 154 234) v ITL OPTRONICS LTD and ELBIT SYSTEMS LTD
File number(s): VID 980 of 2011
Judge: MIDDLETON J
Date of judgment: 10 November 2011
Legislation: Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth)
Cases cited: British Aerospace Plc v Dee Howard Corp [1993] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 368
Francis Travel Marketing Pty Ltd v Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd  (1996) 39 NSWLR 160
Global Fund Partners Ltd v Babcock and Brown Ltd (2010) 79 ASCR 383; [2010] NSWCA 196
Hume Computers Pty Ltd v Exact International BV [2006] FCA 1440
Recyclers of Australia Pty Ltd v Hettinga Equipment Inc (2000) 100 FCR 420
Date of hearing: 10 November 2011
Place: Melbourne
Division: GENERAL DIVISION
Category: No catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 29
Counsel for the Applicant: Mr S H Parmenter
Solicitor for the Applicant: Mallesons Stephen Jaques
Counsel for the Respondents: Mr J W S Peters SC with Ms C G Button
Solicitor for the Respondents: Minter Ellison

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

VID 980 of 2011
BETWEEN:

FAXTECH PTY LTD (TRADING AS POINT TRADING) (ACN 007 154 234)
Applicant
AND:

ITL OPTRONICS LTD
First Respondent

ELBIT SYSTEMS LTD
Second Respondent

JUDGE:

MIDDLETON J

DATE OF ORDER:

10 NOVEMBER 2011

WHERE MADE:

MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The First and Second Respondents’ interlocutory application dated 20 October 2011 is dismissed.

2.Upon:

(a)the First Respondent undertaking to the Court to refrain, until the determination of this proceeding or a further order, from taking any further step directly or indirectly in Claim Number 2011 Folio 1124 in the Commercial Court of the High Court of Justice in England against the Applicant, save for discontinuing those proceedings or seeking a stay thereof; and

(b)the Applicant undertaking to the Court:

(i)to submit to such order (if any) as the Court may consider to be just for the payment of compensation, to be assessed by the Court or as it may direct, to any person, whether or not a party, adversely affected by the operation of the interlocutory undertaking referred to in Order 2(a) above or any continuation (with or without variation) thereof; and

(ii)to pay compensation referred to in (i) to the person there referred to;

the Applicant's interlocutory application dated 31 October 2011 is dismissed.

3.The proceeding is adjourned to a directions hearing on Friday 18 November 2011 at 9.30am.

4.The costs of the interlocutory applications dated 20 and 31 October 2011 are reserved to be determined at the directions hearing on 18 November 2011.

Note:Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

VID 980 of 2011
BETWEEN:

FAXTECH PTY LTD (TRADING AS POINT TRADING) (ACN 007 154 234)
Applicant
AND:

ITL OPTRONICS LTD
First Respondent

ELBIT SYSTEMS…

Continue reading Faxtech Pty Ltd v ITL Optronics Ltd

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Faxtech Pty Ltd v ITL Optronics Ltd [2011] FCA 1320
Case
[2011] FCA 1320
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Faxtech Pty Ltd initiated legal proceedings against ITL Optronics Ltd, with the Federal Court presiding over the case. The dispute centred around an interlocutory application filed by the respondents on 20 October 2011 and another by the applicant on 31 October 2011, both seeking relief in relation to an ongoing proceeding in the Commercial Court of the High Court of Justice in England. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate course of action regarding these applications, including whether to grant relief, impose conditions, or direct compensation for any adverse effects stemming from the interlocutory applications.

The court meticulously examined the merits of each application and the potential implications for all parties involved. It evaluated the necessity of any relief sought, the potential harm to the applicant if relief were denied, and the likelihood of prejudice to the respondents if relief were granted. The court also considered the need for the applicant to submit to an order for compensation and to pay any such compensation if appropriate. After thorough deliberation, the court dismissed both interlocutory applications with specific conditions attached to the applicant's application, ensuring that the applicant would not proceed with further steps in the English court without discontinuing the proceedings or seeking a stay.

In its ruling, the court mandated that the first respondent must refrain from taking any further steps in the English court proceedings against the applicant, except to discontinue or seek a stay. The applicant, in turn, was required to submit to any order for compensation deemed just by the court and to pay any compensation if necessary. The court also outlined specific conditions for the applicant's undertaking, including discontinuing the English proceedings or seeking a stay. The proceeding was subsequently adjourned to a directions hearing on 18 November 2011, with costs of the interlocutory applications reserved for determination at that hearing.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The First and Second Respondents’ interlocutory application dated 20 October 2011 is dismissed.

2. Upon:

(a) the First Respondent undertaking to the Court to refrain, until the determination of this proceeding or a further order, from taking any further step directly or indirectly in Claim Number 2011 Folio 1124 in the Commercial Court of the High Court of Justice in England against the Applicant, save for discontinuing those proceedings or seeking a stay thereof; and

(b) the Applicant undertaking to the Court:

(i) to submit to such order (if any) as the Court may consider to be just for the payment of compensation, to be assessed by the Court or as it may direct, to any person, whether or not a party, adversely affected by the operation of the interlocutory undertaking referred to in Order 2(a) above or any continuation (with or without variation) thereof; and

(ii) to pay compensation referred to in (i) to the person there referred to;

the Applicant's interlocutory application dated 31 October 2011 is dismissed.

3. The proceeding is adjourned to a directions hearing on Friday 18 November 2011 at 9.30am.

4. The costs of the interlocutory applications dated 20 and 31 October 2011 are reserved to be determined at the directions hearing on 18 November 2011.

Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

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.