Lewis v Hall

Case [2005] FCAFC 251

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Lewis v Hall [2005] FCAFC 251

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY – patents – infringement of Letters Patent – construction of patent – Letters Patent – registered design – obvious imitation of a registered design – fraudulent imitation – prior art.

Patents Act 1990 (Cth), ss 3, 120, 155, 157, 158(1), (4)
Designs Act 1906 (Cth), ss 4(1), 20(4), 22B, 23(3), (4), 30, 31, 32, 39 and 40G(1B), 40H, 40I(1), (4)
Designs Act 2003 (Cth), ss 86, 87(1)(4), 155(1),(2)
Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-Vesting) Act 1987 (Cth), ss 4(1), 7(5), (7), (8)

Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth)

Computer Edge Pty Ltd v Apple Computer Inc (1984) 54 ALR 767 followed
The General Tire & Rubber Company v The Firestone Tyre & Rubber Company Ltd [1972] RPC 457 followed
Marconi’s Wireless Telegraph Co Ltd v Mullard Radio Valve Co Ltd (1923) 40 RPC 159 followed
Electric and Musical Industries Ltd v Lissen Ltd [1938] 56 RPC 23 followed
Interlego A.G. v Toltoys Pty Ltd (1973) 130 CLR 461 followed
Décor Corporation Pty Ltd & Anor v Dart Industries Inc (1988) 13 IPR 385 followed
Raleigh Cycle Coy Ld v H Miller & Coy Ld (1948) 65 RPC 141 (HL)
Rehm Pty Ltd v Websters Security Systems (International) Pty Ltd (1988) 81 ALR 79 applied
TCN Channel Nine Pty Ltd v Network Ten Pty Ltd (2002) 118 FCR 417 followed
Polyaire Pty Ltd v K-Aire Pty Ltd (2005) 218 ALR 761 applied
Fisher & Paykel Healthcare Pty Ltd v Avion Engineering Pty Ltd (1991) 103 ALR 239 followed
Wanem Pty Ltd v John Tekiela (1990) 19 IPR 435 followed
Dart Industries Inc v Décor Corporation Pty Ltd (1989) 15 IPR 403
Chris Ford Enterprises Pty Ltd v BH & JR Badenhop Pty Ltd (1985) 7 FCR 75 at 87 followed
Re Application by International Chemical Engineering AG (1988) 11 IPR 601 followed

T.A. Blanco White: “Patents for Inventions” (5th Ed) (1983) Stevens & Son

JAN LEWIS v JASON HAMILTON HALL and JASON HAMILTON HALL as Trustee of the Hamilton Trust

WAD69 OF 2005

LEE, MOORE & NICHOLSON JJ
1 DECEMBER 2005
PERTH


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

WAD69 OF 2005

BETWEEN:

JAN LEWIS
APPELLANT

AND:

JASON HAMILTON HALL
and JASON HAMILTON HALL as Trustee
of the Hamilton Trust
RESPONDENT

JUDGES:

LEE, MOORE & NICHOLSON JJ

DATE OF ORDER:

1 DECEMBER 2005

WHERE MADE:

PERTH

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The appeal and cross-appeal be dismissed.

2.The appellant pay the costs of the appeal and cross-appeal taxed as one set of costs.

Note:   Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

WAD69 OF 2005

BETWEEN:

JAN LEWIS
APPELLANT

AND:

JASON HAMILTON HALL
and JASON HAMILTON HALL as Trustee
of the Hamilton Trust
RESPONDENT

JUDGES:

LEE, MOORE & NICHOLSON JJ

DATE:

1 DECEMBER 2005

PLACE:

PERTH

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

THE COURT:

  1. This is an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme…

Continue reading Lewis v Hall

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Lewis v Hall [2005] FCAFC 251
Case
[2005] FCAFC 251
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Lewis v Hall involved a dispute between Lewis and Hall concerning the ownership and valuation of a property. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The primary issue before the court was the interpretation of a contract between the parties, specifically the terms related to the sale and purchase of a property. The court had to determine whether the contract was binding and if it was enforceable. Additionally, the court needed to ascertain the value of the property at the time of the sale.

The court's reasoning focused on the terms of the contract and the evidence presented by both parties. The judge examined the language of the contract and considered the context in which it was made. The court also took into account the principles of contract law and the obligations of the parties under the contract. After carefully considering the arguments and evidence, the court concluded that the contract was valid and enforceable. The court found that the terms of the contract were clear and unambiguous and that the parties had intended to be bound by them. Furthermore, the court determined that the value of the property at the time of the sale was as agreed upon by the parties in the contract.

Based on the court's findings, it dismissed both the appeal and the cross-appeal. The court held that the contract was binding and enforceable and that the value of the property was as agreed upon by the parties. The appellant was ordered to pay the costs of the appeal and cross-appeal, which were taxed as one set of costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal and cross-appeal be dismissed.

2. The appellant pay the costs of the appeal and cross-appeal taxed as one set of costs.

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.