Fonterra Co-Operative Group Ltd v Meiji Dairies Corporation

Fonterra Co-Operative Group Ltd and Meiji Dairies Corporation were involved in a dispute regarding the compliance with evidence filing requirements in a legal matter before the Commissioner of Patents. Fonterra argued that they had made all reasonable efforts to comply with the filing requirements, asserting they acted promptly and diligently. The central issue was whether Fonterra's actions could be considered prompt and diligent, particularly considering a delay that occurred during settlement discussions and the subsequent preparation of evidence in reply. The court had to decide if the delay was justified and if an extension of time should be granted under the circumstances.

The court examined Fonterra's actions in the context of the legal requirement for prompt and diligent behaviour. Fonterra argued that their actions should be evaluated through an objective/subjective lens, suggesting that a hypothetical reasonable opponent with their actual knowledge would have acted similarly. The court considered that while a misunderstanding of the law might cause a failure to act promptly and diligently, it does not justify actions that are otherwise not prompt and diligent. The court also noted that settlement discussions were not a proper basis for an extension of time. The court ultimately concluded that Fonterra's actions were not prompt and diligent during the period of delay, and thus, their failure to file the evidence could not be justified under the circumstances.

In conclusion, the court found that the failure to advise Fonterra on the applicable regulation did not constitute an exceptional circumstance warranting an extension of time. The court emphasized that the consent of Meiji to an extension of time was not a relevant consideration. Consequently, the court ruled that an extension of time to file evidence in reply was not appropriate.