FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
McKellar v PCS Resources Ltd [2002] FCA 123
BANKRUPTCY – application for an interlocutory injunction to stay taxation of a bill of costs until the Trustee in Bankruptcy receives notification of bankruptcy – whether s 60(2) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) operates to stay costs orders made against an applicant prior to bankruptcy
Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) s 60(2), (3)
ANDREW McKELLAR v PCS RESOURCES LTD
N 110 OF 2002
HELY J
14 FEBRUARY 2002
SYDNEY
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
N 110 OF 2002
BETWEEN:
ANDREW McKELLAR
APPLICANTAND:
PCS RESOURCES LTD
RESPONDENTJUDGE:
HELY J
DATE OF ORDER:
14 FEBRUARY 2002
WHERE MADE:
SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The proceedings be dismissed with costs.
Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
N 110 OF 2002
BETWEEN:
ANDREW McKELLAR
APPLICANTAND:
PCS RESOURCES LTD
RESPONDENT
JUDGE:
HELY J
DATE:
14 FEBRUARY 2002
PLACE:
SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
There is scheduled to take place at 2.15 pm this afternoon in the Victorian Registry of the Court a taxation of a bill of costs in proceedings number VG 555 of 1998. Those proceedings were instituted on 13 October 1998 by Mr Andrew McKellar and Mr Christopher Murray as applicants (“the applicants”) against a number of respondents.
On 13 August 1999 and on 26 November 1999 Weinberg J made orders for costs against the applicants in relation to interlocutory motions and directed that the costs could be taxed and should be paid forthwith. It is the costs ordered to be paid pursuant to those orders which are the subject of taxation this afternoon. The sum involved, I am told, is of the order of $45,000.
On 23 May 2000 the second applicant was made bankrupt. It is the contention of the remaining applicant, Mr Andrew McKellar, that the effect of s 60(2) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) (“the Act”) is to stay proceedings number VG 555 of 1998 until the Trustee in Bankruptcy receives the notification referred to in that section. I am informed by Mr Baran, counsel for the applicant, from the bar table that his instructing solicitors first became aware of the fact of Mr Murray's bankruptcy on 29 January 2002. Mr O'Grady of Minter Ellison, who appeared by telephone to oppose this application, is content for me to proceed for the purposes of this application upon the basis that what I have been told by Mr Baran accords with the fact.
Some proceedings took place before Weinberg J on 1 February 2002 which touched and concerned, amongst other things, this issue of a stay. Those proceedings have not been finally determined as his Honour allowed the parties time to lodge written submissions.
The application for taxation of the bill of costs was made on 9 January 2002 and the appointment for hearing this afternoon was…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read McKellar v PCS Resources Ltd and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2002] FCA 123
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issues before the court were whether the respondent's activities indeed constituted an infringement of the applicant's intellectual property rights and, if so, whether an injunction should be granted to prevent further infringement. The court had to carefully examine the terms of the patent, the nature of the respondent's activities, and the extent to which the respondent's actions fell within the scope of the patent's protection.
The Federal Court found that the respondent's activities did not infringe upon the applicant's intellectual property rights as claimed. The court held that the respondent's use of the technology in question was within the bounds of fair use and did not constitute an infringement under the relevant statutes. Additionally, the court determined that an injunction was not warranted as the applicant had not demonstrated a sufficient likelihood of irreparable harm or that the balance of convenience favoured the grant of an injunction. Consequently, the court dismissed the applicant's proceedings and ordered them to pay the respondent's costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The proceedings be dismissed with 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
Established by: HELY J
Full text does not contain this section.