Interact Machine Tools (NSW) P/L v Yamazaki Mazak Corporation

[1993] FCA 637

JUDGES CHAMBERS,

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA,

450 LITTLE BOURKE STREET,

MELBOURNE. 3000

13 September 1993

Sonia Cornale
Federal Court of Australia
Principal Registry
Law Courts Building
Queens Square

SYDNEY NSW 2000

Dear Sonia,

Rav Osborne v Commissioner of Taxation
No. VG 344 of 1993
Re: I D S Collie: Ex Parte: N Porsvth

No. VP 400 of 1992

I enclose a copy of the judgment delivered by his Honour Mr

Justice Heerey in the above matte-on 1 September 1993.

This judgment is not for general distribution.

Yours sincerely,

<

David Brennan

Associate to Heerey J

enc.

JUDGMENT No. ..a62.?...Q./ 22 ...

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA )

1

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY ) No. NG 657 of 1991

1

GENERAL DIVISION 1

ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGE OF THE

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:	INTERACT MACHINE TOOLS !NSW1 PTY LIMITED
I.M.T. INTERNATIONAL MACHINE TOOLS PTY LIMITED
NAKAMURA-TOME PRECISION INDUSTRY CO. LIMITED

Appellants

AND:  YAMAZAKI MAZAK CORPORATION

Respondent

3 August 1993

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

LOCKHART J.

The respondent, Yamazaki Mazak Corporation, seeks a stay of one of the orders of the Full Court of this Court made on 23 July 1993, namely an order revoking the relevant patents in this case. The stay is sought pending the determination by the High Court

",,

of an application for special leave to appeal to that court by

respondent is a Japanese corporation and I understand from what	the respondent if it decides to make such an application. The
I have been told by counsel that certain advice has been given to it. I do not know if in fact an application for special leave
will be made, but it may be made. If it is made, it must be made
not later than Friday 13 August 1993.
I have read the evidence in support of the motion, and I have heard submissions of counsel and read their written submissions.
The jurisdiction of this Court to grant stays of orders of the Court pending the determination of special leave applications by the High Court has been referred to in many cases and I do not propose to refer to them further. This is a jurisdiction which this court deals with not infrequently. The basic principles are
set out in Jennings C o n s t r u c t i o n L i m i t e d v Burgundy Royale Inves tments P t y L i m i t e d (1986) 161 CLR 681 at 684 by Brennan J.
and have been applied by judges of this Court and of the High Court.
I am satisfied that the various integers that must be answered favourably for the applicant for the stay have been made out in this case and I think it is appropriate that a stay be granted until Friday 13 August 1993 or until the High Court determines the application for special leave, if in fact it has been filed on or before 13 August 1993.
On the condition that the respondent prosecutes its application (if any) to the High Court for special leave to appeal with all due diligence and expedition, the Court makes orders 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 in accordance with the short minutes of order, initialled by me, dated today and placed with the papers.

I certify that	page
are a true'copy
herein df the	Mr. Justice

Counsel for the Appellants	D M Yates
Solicitors for the Appellants :	Davies Ryan de Boos
Counsel for the Respondent	D K Catterns QC
Solicitors for the Respondent :	Freehill Hollingdale & Page
Date of Hearing	3 August 1993