Hogan, P. v Koala Dundee Pty Ltd

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA	)
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	1 N.S.W. G749 of 1987
GENESAL DIVISION	)

I

: - B PAUL HOGAN

First Applicant

AND: RIMFIRE FILMS LIMITED

Second Applicant

AND: KOALA DUNDEE PTY LIMITED

Respondent

...	MINUTES OF ORDER
t

JUDGE MAKING ORDER:	PINCUS J.
DATE OF ORDER:	8 A P R I L 1988
WHERE MADE:	BRISBANE
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. the appllcation for trial by jury be dlsmlssed;

2. the costs of and incidental to the notice of motlon

filed on 29 March 1988 be taxed and pald by the

NOTE:	Settlement and entry of orders is dealt wlth In
Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

respondent to the appllcants, such taxation not to

.	take place until d general order for costs	1s made
in this sult or further earlier order.

c ,

IN THE	COURT OF AUSTRALIA	)
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	1	N.S.W. G749 of 1987
GENERAL DIVISION	)

EIWEEN:  PAUL HOGAN

First Applicant

AND:  RIKFIRE FILMS LIMITED

Second Applicant

AND: KOALA DUNDEE PTY LIMITED

Respondent

PINCUS J. 8 APRIL 1988

M TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

In thls matter the respondent in the prlnclpal

proceedings seeks an order, under 5 . 4 0 of the Federal Court of

Australia Act 1976, directing the trial of the issues in the suit by jury- The applicant in the principal proceedings is the

leading character in the film "Crocodlle Dundee" and he and	the
second applicant, the producer	of the film, complain that the

. respondent is exploiting commerclal advantages, which are sald

properly to belong to the applicants associated wlth that	film, in
a way which breaches the Trade Practices Act	1974. The details do

not matter, for present purposes, but the material before the

Court suggests the complaint is principally of use of the

expression "Dundee Country" in the context redolent of the film

and accompanied	by an image of a koala dressed in	a way which also
reminds one	of the dress	of the applicant in the film.

L

2.

The convenient course is to use the designations the

parties have in the principal proceedings, that is, the party
applying for this relief will be hereafter referred to as the

respondent.

The relevant provisions of the statute are as follows:

5.39 says:

“In every suit in the Court, unless the Court or a

Judge otherwise orders, the trial shall be by a

Judge without a jury.“

Section 4 0 says:

“The Court or a Judge may, in any suit n which the

ends of lustice appear to render it expedient to do

so, direct the trial with a jury of the suit or of

an Issue	of fact, and may for that purpose make	ll
such orders, issue	all	such wrlts and cause all

such proceedings to be had and taken as the Court

or Judge thinks necessary, and upon the finding	of
the	~ury the Court may give such declslon and

pronounce such judgment as the…